City dwellers have a stressful and busy lifestyle, making them more prone to pains such as neck and shoulder aches or neuralgia. In addition, cancer pains may also curtail patients’ quality of life and mental wellbeing. In view of the situation, in recent years many pain relief or management programmes claiming to be provided by professionals or endorsed by celebrities have emerged on the market, with many of them charging exorbitant fees. The Consumer Council has received many complaints about pain management programmes, mostly related to poor results and unscrupulous sales practices. The Council reminded service providers that they should not mislead consumers into signing contracts by high-pressure sales tactics, by exaggerating diagnosis and programme effectiveness, as well as other unscrupulous trade practices in promotion of their services and programmes to avoid violation of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance.
A lot of complaints received by the Council concerned treatments sold in prepaid packages, and providers usually touted their services by offering discounts or complimentary treatments. The Council points out that although providers may offer extremely favourable prices such as “free trial” and “buy 10 sessions and get 10 free”, consumers should consider their own medical conditions, health changes or their tolerance to the treatments, before making a reasonable and prudent choice for regimens that best suit personal needs and make timely adjustments. With this in mind, one should avoid purchasing treatments in bulk. On the other hand, consumers should also pay heed to whether treatments are supported by scientific evidence to avoid treatments with doubtful effects. Moreover, consumers should not blindly follow advice from others, nor should they spend a large amount of money without prior professional assessment, thereby risking delay in treatment or even harming their health.
Case 1: Free Trial and Gifts as Lure
Followed by High-pressure Sales Tactics for $70,000 Treatment Programme
The complainant, who had been suffering from severe chronic spinal pain, by chance found Company A, which was endorsed by an artiste and touted “free first experience, no consultation fee, one free treatment, and complimentary pain relief cream” and immediately made an appointment for a trial session. On the day of the free trial, a staff member of Company A, after applying a device to the complainant's back, claimed that the pain was caused by scoliosis, and that spine straightening treatments were necessary to eradicate the pain. The staff first tapped the complainant vigorously on both sides of the spine with the device and then attempted to straighten the spine by hand. Afterwards, the staff member said that the free trial only included the “back examination”, while the “spine tap by device” and “manual spine straightening” required additional charges, thus proceeded to pressure-sell the complainant a 41-day treatment package for $70,000. Even though the complainant requested to pay per session, the staff claimed that the company did not accept payment by single session, and in the end the complainant could only submit to signing a service contract and paying immediately. In the evening of the same day, the complainant suddenly had severe back pain and was eventually admitted to hospital.
The complainant’s son checked the treatment receipt and found that there was a charge for “Laser Skin Rejuvenation”. He later learnt that even though staff had promised a complimentary “Laser Skin Rejuvenation” treatment upon purchase of over $70,000, a fee was in fact charged. The complainant’s son thus lodged a complaint with the Council claiming that Company A had exaggerated the effectiveness of their treatments, and that staff had misled and cajoled his father into prepaying for a costly package. After the Council’s follow-up and conciliation, the complainant was eventually refunded approximately $55,000.
Case 2: Ineffective Even After 20 Treatment Sessions
Service Provider Claimed Skipping 1 Week as Reason
The complainant, who long suffered from numbness and pain in both hands, decided to go for a medical check-up after receiving Company B’s telemarketing promotions. The chiropractor who received the complainant claimed that he must undergo a treatment programme of “at least 2 to 3 treatments per week for at least 40 treatments”, and one staff member also coaxed the complainant that the numbness and pain would be alleviated after 10 to 20 treatments. In the end, the complainant decided to purchase a treatment programme valued at $37,000. However, after over 20 treatments, not only had the pain not improved, the complainant suffered additional scapular pain suspected to be caused by the treatments. The complainant requested a refund from Company B but the staff said that the only option was switching to another chiropractor, so the complainant sought assistance from the Council.
Company B explained to the Council that treatments must be administered “3 sessions per week” to achieve improvement. However, according to their records, the complainant only had 2 sessions in one particular week and no sessions in another week during the treatment period. Therefore, they considered that the unsatisfactory results may be caused by the complainant’s failure to follow the chiropractor’s advice, and therefore a refund could not be arranged. The Council suggested the complainant to consider seeking legal redress.
Case 3: Sales Pitches at Every Treatment
Over $300,000 Worth of Treatments Purchased in 4 Months
The complainant, suffering from frozen shoulders, often experienced upper limb pain and numbness. After seeing an advertisement of Company C, the complainant tried out a free pain relief treatment and agreed to purchase a programme after vigorous selling from the staff. During every visit thereafter, the staff would keep on peddling new treatments. Recognising that there were still many pre-purchased treatments yet to be used, the complainant initially refused to buy new ones, but later on was forced to pay because of worries that the staff would neglect safety during treatment as they focused too much on promoting. Within 4 months from the first visit, the complainant eventually succumbed to buying over 200 treatment sessions at a total of $317,000. However, not only did the large number of treatments fail to alleviate pain, the complainant also experienced extreme duress by Company C's high-pressure sales tactics, and sought assistance from the Council to demand a refund of around $137,000 for the remaining unused treatments.
Company C replied to the Council that it agreed to switch the unused treatments to other programmes, health products, or to transfer unused treatments to the complainant's friends, but the complainant rejected all options and insisted on a direct refund. After repeated conciliation by the Council, Company C finally agreed to a refund and the amount was increased from the initial amount of around $25,300 to $90,000. The case was thus resolved.
There are many forms of discounts and promotions on pain management programmes. Consumers should pay heed to the following before committing to a treatment that suits their needs:
- Pain is a symptom that can be caused by a wide range of illnesses, and a layperson may not be able to make accurate diagnoses of the cause. Before choosing a treatment, consult a doctor to understand the cause of pain and recommended course of treatment. Do not lightly believe in promotional tactics of service providers, especially those labelled as “real customer testimonials” or blindly follow the endorsement of celebrities;
- Consumers should consider choosing service providers that offer a charge-per-session option so they can flexibly choose appropriate treatments according to the prevailing health condition. If the service provider does not have such option, consumers should carefully consider whether to patronise;
- Before purchasing promotional treatment packages, consumers should find out from the service provider the promotion details and whether a refund mechanism is available. For example, whether the promotions are discounts or complimentary free treatments, whether switching mid-way to other treatments is allowed, and whether there is an expiry date for the programme; if refunds are available, enquire about the conditions and time limit, whether there is a handling fee, and the method of calculating refunds for unused treatments;
- According to a family medicine specialist, chronic pains are hard to eradicate completely. Hence, different treatment options and procedures aim at relieving pain so as to improve patients’ quality of life, and being “painless” should not be taken as the ultimate goal of treatments. One should be psychologically prepared to live with pain. As for pain caused by past injuries or physical deterioration, both common causes of chronic pain, moderate exercise can improve the condition.
Download the article (Chinese only): https://ccchoice.org/562pain
Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.