Redesigning the SDoH Assessment Tool
Helping people feel seen—beyond the clinic
Why This Mattered
We often talk about healthcare in terms of doctors, prescriptions, and insurance plans. But what about the things that happen outside the clinic—the missed meals, unstable housing, or lack of transportation?
That’s where the Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) come in. Highmark asked us to redesign an online assessment tool that helps people share those deeper, often sensitive parts of their lives. But the original version? It was cold, clinical, and packed with confusing disclaimers.
The Problem
Here’s what we were up against:
-
The language felt robotic and overwhelming
-
Legal disclaimers dominated the experience
-
There was no clear reason given for why we were asking such personal questions
-
A 96-question assessment—encouraged by CMS—was presented on the member website, but most users didn’t complete it
The result? People bailed. Or gave incomplete answers. And that meant care coordinators were left without the information they needed to help.
What We Found
We reviewed feedback from call centers, internal surveys, and behavioral assessments. One theme kept surfacing:
People weren’t comfortable sharing hard truths—because they didn’t trust the tool.
And honestly, could you blame them?
The form jumped straight into asking about food insecurity and income—with no setup, no reassurance, and no clarity about what would happen next.
Research & Discovery
Before diving into design, we took a step back to understand the bigger picture: Why Highmark? Why SDoH? Why now? This wasn’t just about improving a form—it was about reframing how users relate to care, and how we, as a team, support them in doing so.
1. Strategic Research Deep Dives
We explored Highmark’s internal research around Social Determinants of Health (SDoH), focusing on the language, emotional motivators, and policy alignment surrounding whole-person care. This helped ground our tone and UX patterns in real user barriers—like transportation, housing, and food access—that are often overlooked in clinical experiences.
2. Framing with “How Might We” Questions
We reframed the project’s guiding themes into actionable prompts:
-
How might we show users the value of answering these questions?
-
How might we position SDoH as a care opportunity, not an obligation?
-
How might we help users feel safe sharing sensitive parts of their lives?
These questions guided both our product strategy and content tone, helping us stay aligned on empathy, transparency, and impact.
3. Competitive & Naming Research
We conducted a competitive analysis of how other insurers and health systems frame similar assessments—paying close attention to tone, structure, and dropout points.
To test our own approach, we ran an unmoderated survey on quiz naming and call-to-action language, gathering insights into what felt approachable, clear, and trustworthy.
What We Did
Rewrote Everything (With Empathy)
We introduced short blurbs like “Why we’re asking” before each section. We ditched the clinical tone for something real. Friendly. Human.
Gave People a Sense of Progress
Instead of one long page, we broke it into guided steps with a subtle progress bar—so users always knew where they were and what was next.
Tested What Felt Right
Through moderated sessions on UserZoom, we learned that even a few words of reassurance (“Your answers won’t impact your coverage”) made users breathe easier.
Designed for Comfort
High contrast. Big tap targets. Clean lines. Clear hierarchy. And copy that met people where they were—often stressed, often unsure, and always human.
UX Design Through a Human-Centered Lens
While we designed over 20 screens for this experience, these four examples showcase key decision points where behavioral psychology and human-centered thinking shaped the interface.
Framing Trust Through Empathy
To ease users into a potentially sensitive survey, we led with transparency and purpose. By explaining why we were asking about social determinants of health—and how it could help them—we framed the experience as supportive rather than intrusive.
This design uses Framing, Reciprocity, and the Empathy Gap to make users feel seen and in control.
Designing for Recognition and Belonging
We greeted users by name to build connection and trust from the start. Personalization not only reinforces user relevance but also boosts task completion. By combining the Singularity Effect with clear Visual Signifiers, we made the experience feel familiar, supportive, and tailored to the individual.
Encouraging Sensitive Input With Clarity
Asking for a Member ID early in the process required extra care. We added contextual help and transparent framing to explain why it was needed and how it would be used.
This screen blends Default Bias, Progressive Disclosure, and supportive language to increase comfort and reduce abandonment.
Reducing Friction With Simplicity
Rather than overwhelming users with a dense form, we broke down questions into digestible steps using Progressive Disclosure.
A clean layout, simple language, and a progress bar guided users forward—leveraging Cognitive Load Reduction and the Goal Gradient Effect to maintain focus and reduce anxiety.
Outcomes at a Glance
+30%
Completion Rate
Increase in form completion rate after redesign
💬
Positive Feedback
From internal compliance and care coordination teams
♻️
Reusable Patterns
Design and content structure repurposed for future assessments
🌟
Improved Trust & Clarity
Users reported greater understanding and emotional comfort with questions
Structure builds trust.
Designing for vulnerable populations required buy-in from legal, compliance, and dev teams. I learned how to facilitate conversations where empathy and regulations could coexist—ensuring privacy without compromising clarity or warmth. Sometimes, “Why are we asking this?” was a question I had to answer for both the user and the business.
Tone is UX.
One of the most powerful shifts in this project came not from a layout change, but from a sentence:
“We’re asking because we care about your whole health—not just what happens at the doctor’s office.”
That line tested well and stuck. It reminded me that microcopy is product design, and that the right words at the right time can build trust faster than any visual element.
Clarity builds confidence.
When people understand why they’re being asked a question, they’re more likely to answer honestly. That’s not just better UX—it’s better healthcare. This project reinforced that designing for trust means inviting users into the process, not pushing them through it.