In-Depth Analysis: Possible Racism or Discrimination at Clarkson Eyecare

Contextual Background

On January 21, 2025, my wife and I, a Black American veteran and Asian American woman, attended a pre-scheduled appointment at Clarkson Eyecare in Sun City West, Arizona. The clinic was selected based on its inclusion in the Tricare West healthcare network. Despite having confirmed our appointment and the clinic’s network status beforehand, we were subjected to several barriers that prevented us from receiving treatment.

The hurdles included:

1. Claiming an Absence of Contact Information: Despite modern technologies like caller ID, the receptionist claimed no record of our contact number.
2. Refusal to Accept Provided Referral Documentation: Although we presented a referral document, the staff claimed additional authorization was needed, which is unnecessary for Tricare Select.
3. Misrepresentation of Tricare Protocols: The clinic insisted on a VA authorization number, ignoring that Tricare Select does not require such a step.
4. Failure to Differentiate Between Systems: The staff seemed either unaware or unwilling to acknowledge the separate systems for VA TriWest and Tricare West, a critical distinction for administering care to veterans.

Indicators of Possible Racism or Discrimination

While administrative oversights and errors can occur, the nature and sequence of these events suggest more than mere negligence:

1. Systemic Disregard: The clinic’s refusal to verify accurate information regarding Tricare Select protocols—despite being a listed provider—points to a pattern of resistance. This cannot be dismissed as ignorance given their position as a Tricare network provider.
2. Targeted Behavior: The combination of miscommunication, dismissive attitudes, and repeated obstacles faced by a Black veteran and his mixed-race family suggests potential racial bias. It is reasonable to infer that the clinic staff’s actions might have been influenced by prejudices rather than legitimate procedural concerns.
3. Lack of Professionalism: A BBB rating of “F” reflects systemic issues within Clarkson Eyecare.
   This adds credibility to the argument that the clinic may not consistently uphold the standards expected of medical providers, including equitable treatment of diverse patients.

https://www.bbb.org/us/az/sun-city-west/profile/optician/clarkson-eye-care-1126-1000017579/addressId/113552

TRICARE Referrals and Authorizations

As noted on the TRICARE website (TriWest TRICARE Provider Handbook: TRICARE Referrals and Authorizations):

Prior authorization is or is not required in the following instances.

Referral and authorization requirements differ by TRICARE program option:

• TRICARE Prime: Referrals are required from a beneficiary’s PCM prior to seeking care from other providers
• TRICARE Select: Referrals are not required to seek care from TRICARE authorized providers
• Certain services require pre-authorizations depending on the program option

Relevance to Tricare and TriWest Healthcare Alliance

1. Undermining Veteran Care: As organizations dedicated to providing accessible, high-quality healthcare for veterans, Tricare and TriWest Healthcare Alliance must ensure that listed providers uphold their commitment to equitable service. Clarkson Eyecare’s alleged actions undermine this mission by creating unnecessary barriers to care for a vulnerable population.
2. Potential Liability: Retaining a provider accused of discriminatory practices exposes Tricare and TriWest to reputational and legal risks. Allegations of racism, especially involving veterans, can erode trust in these organizations and attract public scrutiny.
3. Disparities in Access: Discrimination—whether intentional or systemic—directly impacts the health outcomes of minorities. By allowing providers like Clarkson Eyecare to remain in-network, Tricare and TriWest perpetuate these disparities and fail to protect their beneficiaries from unequal treatment.

Summary

The series of events experienced at Clarkson Eyecare strongly suggests a pattern of racial discrimination and systemic incompetence. Despite being a listed provider within the Tricare network, the clinic failed to follow basic protocols and exhibited behaviors that appeared dismissive and prejudicial. Given their already poor BBB rating, Clarkson Eyecare has demonstrated a lack of professionalism and accountability that reflects poorly on the Tricare and TriWest Healthcare Alliance networks.

Analysis of Clarkson Eyecare’s Actions

Based on the outlined policies, it is my opinion that Clarkson Eyecare may not be fully educated on the referral and pre-authorization requirements. During our visit, my wife and I were told that a VA authorization number was required, and the receptionist claimed they had never encountered a TRICARE patient who received care at their facility without such authorization.

This misinformation suggests one of two possibilities:

1. Improper Billing Practices: Clarkson Eyecare may be billing TriWest for care provided to veterans or their family members under a plan that requires VA authorizations, instead of appropriately billing plans like TRICARE Select.
2. Potential Racism or Discrimination: Given the refusal to provide care despite having a referral from my wife’s TRICARE primary care provider, it is plausible that systemic biases or discriminatory attitudes influenced their decision.

Either scenario raises significant concerns about the facility’s understanding of TRICARE policies and its treatment of minority families seeking care.

Conclusion / Grievances

It is imperative that Tricare and TriWest Healthcare Alliance take these grievances seriously. Clarkson Eyecare should be thoroughly investigated for their handling of Tricare Select patients and their adherence to the required standards of care. If the allegations are substantiated, their status as an in-network provider should be revoked. This action would send a clear message that discriminatory practices and systemic barriers to care will not be tolerated, ensuring all veterans receive the equitable treatment they deserve.

Disclaimer:
The content of this article is based on the personal experiences and perceptions of the author. While every effort has been made to present the events accurately, the views expressed are opinionated and reflect the author’s interpretation of the situation. Readers are encouraged to consider this perspective while forming their own conclusions.