Early AEP Observations: Learning to Extract the Right Lessons from 2025’s Disruption
The Annual Enrollment Period (AEP) for 2026 officially concluded on December 7, and while Media Logic is still gathering comprehensive data across all our clients, one thing has become unmistakably clear: disruption reached unprecedented levels this year, and consumers reacted in strikingly different ways depending on their priorities and local market conditions.
This year’s AEP was shaped by what can only be described as a perfect storm of Medicare Advantage disruption. As Action Benefits documented, carriers across the country made dramatic changes to their 2026 product portfolios—entire plans were terminated, zero-premium plans suddenly carried premiums, deductibles appeared where they hadn’t existed before, and supplemental benefits like dental, vision, and OTC allowances were significantly scaled back or eliminated. This was further disrupted by a number of high-stakes provider network battles that played out publicly during AEP, with no guarantee of resolution.
The result? Market dynamics diverged significantly, with some regions seeing unprecedented early shopping surges while others followed late-enrollment patterns. Some tactics that worked exceptionally well in one market may have fallen flat in another.
For Medicare marketers trying to extract lessons from 2025’s AEP, this creates both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge? Resisting the urge to draw universal conclusions from isolated experiences. The opportunity? Learning to distinguish which insights reflect enduring trends versus outcomes specific to this year’s unique circumstances.
To explore what we’re seeing and what it means, Media Logic’s Healthcare Group Directors and Practice Leads Josh Martin and Denise Carney-Jones sat down to compare notes on the market disruption that lead to very different AEP experiences for their clients this year.
A Conversation on What We’re Learning
Josh, let’s start with the most striking difference you observed this year with your clients.
Josh: Without question, it was the timing. In many markets, consumer shopping activity surged earlier than historical norms. Following the delivery of Annual Notice of Change (ANOC) letters and plan termination notices in late September and early October, beneficiaries acted quickly.
Rather than waiting until later in the AEP, these consumers moved decisively—driving a concentrated wave of shopping activity in early to mid-October and a significant volume of enrollments beginning around the October 15 enrollment start date. For growth-oriented plans that were active in-market during this window, this shift created meaningful opportunity.
Interestingly, while these plans saw shopping activity taper off, there were others that saw the typical surge in the last week.
What do you think drove these different patterns?
Denise: I think it comes down to consumer priorities, with local market conditions likely playing a role. In markets where there were carrier exits, plan terminations and ongoing provider contract disputes, many consumers faced more complex research and comparison tasks. Will my doctor or hospital be in network? Will my prescriptions be covered? And some may have delayed decision-making, hoping that network questions would be resolved.
Josh: That makes sense that consumers in those situations didn’t act as quickly. In the markets where we saw early surges, the disruption was more clear-cut—plans were terminating, ANOCs were definitive, and there wasn’t as much uncertainty about what would happen next. Consumers had clarity, so they acted quickly.
Turning to Pre-Heat, Josh, you mentioned that the period continued to see declines in early lead generation.
Josh: Yes, and this trend isn’t new for some of our clients. We’ve been closely watching the window before AEP for the last several years, and it appears to be not as effective in driving early lead generation. Likely because in some of our clients’ markets, consumers are increasingly tuning out—in regard to engaging with brands early—until October.
For those clients, we’ll discuss what the right investment level should be and whether a different messaging strategy might be more effective during Pre-Heat. We believe there is still opportunity to impact the AEP during this period, but we may rethink what we want to get out of it.
Denise: Interesting, because historically, the Pre-Heat period can be quite effective in filling the lead pipeline. Earlier drops have consistently gotten a good response. This is exactly why sweeping generalizations about “what works” can be dangerous—effectiveness is clearly market-specific, and results need to be monitored and strategy adjusted year after year.
Let’s talk about what did work. Josh, you mentioned some surprising successes.
Josh: In-person seminars made a remarkable comeback for many clients. After years of declining attendance, seminars were “sold out” this year. The tactics driving those registrations—direct mail and print—showed exceptional performance. For members facing plan terminations, the desire for face-to-face guidance and the ability to ask questions in person clearly outweighed the convenience of digital shopping.
We also ran a gift card test for one client that generated five times more leads than the control group—a decisive result after years of inconclusive incentive testing. While we’ll need to analyze whether these leads converted to enrollments at comparable rates, the response demonstrates real consumer anxiety about costs.
Denise: If clients were seeing declining success in previous years, the return of successful seminars this year makes sense. The disruption created confusion, and when people are confused and anxious, they want human interaction. They want to sit across from someone and ask questions until they feel confident in their decision. That’s especially true for older beneficiaries who may not be as comfortable researching complex plan details online.
How do you think consumer trust in health plans affected this AEP?
Josh: This is perhaps the most significant long-term challenge. All of this disruption—paired with widespread media coverage of questionable practices by some national insurers and lead aggregators—has taken a toll on Medicare consumers. Recent research indicates that beneficiaries are increasingly skeptical of marketing messages and quickly dismiss communications they perceive as overly promotional or agenda-driven. This isn’t a short-term marketing challenge—it’s a fundamental shift that will require health plans to rebuild credibility through authentic engagement, transparent communication, and demonstrated value beyond promotional messaging.
Denise: I agree this is real and concerning. The trust deficit represents a deeper, longer-term challenge that goes well beyond tactical adjustments to AEP campaigns. Rebuilding credibility with Medicare beneficiaries will remain a priority well beyond the next enrollment cycle. It requires sustained attention to authenticity across every communication touchpoint.
So, if a Medicare marketer is reading this conversation and wondering what marketing success looks like in 2026, what would you tell them?
Josh: It requires separating signal from noise in 2025’s disruptions, tracking what actually drove behavior change and learning from cross-industry case studies. In addition, anticipate new complex variables, such as the impact of 2026 mid-term elections.
Denise: I would say planning for variables is becoming part of the normal process, and that it’s more important than ever to align AEP investment strategies with local market realities rather than relying on a single national playbook.
The Takeaway: Learning to Learn from AEP
This year’s AEP taught us that market conditions, competitive dynamics, regulatory changes, and consumer sentiment create a unique combination of factors every year, in every market.
For Medicare marketers, the most valuable skill isn’t predicting what will happen next year based on what happened this year. It’s developing the analytical discipline to understand why things happened the way they did, which factors were market-specific, which were timing-specific, and which might represent more durable shifts in consumer behavior.
Want to discuss how these findings might impact your 2026 strategy? Reach out to Media Logic today.
