One working system for eighteen pharmaceutical brands

CarePath flows combined interaction requirements with brand copy, legal language, and FDA review. The team needed to review required copy in the state and layout where a person would encounter it.

I led UX at IBM and managed two designers through that review cycle. The design team mapped forms, authentication, messages, and claims as explicit screen states so the interaction, responsive layout, and required copy could be reviewed together.

Related desktop and mobile savings designs place program copy beside an enrollment action. Their copy and action wording differ. These are historical design artifacts, not current program or eligibility guidance.

Eighteen brands shared form and authentication patterns but had different content and program rules. The Figma system kept common interactions together and made each brand's differences visible to reviewers.

Account access, form validation, messages, and claims changed after a person acted or the system responded. Desktop and mobile layouts also had to preserve the same status and next action.

I led the review work. The system sheets put related states beside one another so reviewers could compare copy, actions, and desktop and mobile layouts.

The same review included password requests, email guidance, and validation. Those designs proposed the return path; they do not establish working email delivery or password enforcement.

The dashboard separates work needing attention from other updates. Patient views distinguish enrollment, benefit verification, prior authorization, and claims. An open record keeps the selected row visible beside its details and previous/next controls.

Task-specific views and configurable columns kept the relevant status and next action in view. The team reviewed those patterns alongside required program copy in the shared Figma system.

The original portal screens use fictional demonstration records. They show design states, not real patient information or connected clinical services.

The message form asks whether the sender knows the recipient's extension. If they do, one field handles routing. Otherwise, the form asks for therapeutic area and state. Patient association stays beside those fields.

These are proposed routing states, not a tested clickthrough. They do not establish delivered messages or response performance.

I led UX and the review work, managing two designers in the shared Figma system. The designs brought interaction states, required copy, and desktop and mobile layouts into the same review.