How Kaiser Used An Anti-Consumer Clause To Skirt Payment For Fatal Cancer | ThinkProgress

How Kaiser Used An Anti-Consumer Clause To Skirt Payment For Fatal Cancer | ThinkProgress: Maui high school teacher Michael Siopes had a rare, aggressive, and fatal form of cancer that Kaiser, his insurance provider, had never treated before. His Kaiser physician said he would have to do an “internet search” to figure out a treatment plan, but that he likely had a month to live. Siopes found a specialist at Duke University, and, with his Kaiser doctor’s referral, underwent successful treatment that eliminated his treatment.
After the time-sensitive treatment was complete, however, Kaiser refused to pay the $250,000 bill, saying it was “elective, non-emergency, non-urgent care” and that Kaiser could have provided the treatment in-house. That was enough of an alleged injustice. But as in all access to justice cases, that is where Siopes’ story begins, not ends. Siopes learned that, like countless consumers and employees, he could not sue in court, because he was subject to an arbitration clause.