Defendant, a vision insurance provider, terminated plaintiff, an optometrist, for using unapproved lens suppliers for defendant’s patients.  Defendant’s network doctor agreement provided for a two-step review process of disputes, including those over termination under these circumstances.  The first step was review by a three-member panel, the second step was arbitration.  This decision holds that this two-step process does not violate H&S Code 1367 or 28 CCR  1300.71.38, which required health care plans to allow “capitated” providers a fast, fair and inexpensive dispute resolution process other than arbitration.  The first step of defendant’s dispute resolution process met that requirement.  Nothing prevented defendant from requiring arbitration rather than a court suit as a second step.  Defendant’s arbitration agreement was not unconscionable.  There was a minimal procedural unconscionability as it was an adhesion contract by a party with greater bargaining power, but there was evidence that defendant would consider provider-requested changes to its form contract.  The contract’s incorporation of detailed arbitration rule not provided with the contract did not increase the procedural unconscionability since plaintiff didn’t complain about undisclosed feature of the rules.  The agreement was not substantively unconscionable.  The arbitrator selection process gave the provider a reasonable chance to object to any biased arbitrator.  The confidentiality provisions were reasonable given that plaintiff agreed it was a privileged peer review process.  Discovery was not unduly restricted.  The provision requiring the provider to pre-pay half the arbitration costs was not shown to impose any undue hardship on plaintiff.