Dad, 58, Dies After Insurance Said His Cancer Treatment Was ‘Not Necessary’

A West Virginia father battling stage 4 cancer spent his final months fighting not just a deadly disease, but a cold, bureaucratic health insurance system that his family says blocked a promising treatment until it was too late.

Eric Tennant, a 58-year-old mining safety instructor from Bridgeport, had already endured more than two years of grueling chemotherapy when doctors identified him as a strong candidate for histotripsy in early 2025. The cutting-edge treatment uses ultrasound waves to target liver tumors without surgery and offered what his family believed could have been a critical chance to buy him more time.

His oncologist was on board. His medical team was ready. The window to act was narrow, but there was still hope.

Then the insurance denial came.

According to reports from NBC News and KFF Health News, Tennant’s health plan refused to cover the treatment, declaring it was “not medically necessary” — even though his doctors had recommended it. The family appealed multiple times, but each effort failed. Paying out of pocket would have cost roughly $50,000, a crushing amount for most American families already carrying the emotional and financial burden of a cancer fight.

By the time the decision was finally reversed, Eric Tennant was no longer strong enough to receive the treatment.

He was placed on hospice and died in September.

His wife, Rebecca Tennant, later said the family will always wonder whether a timely approval could have changed the course of his final months.

“He wasn’t afraid to die, but he didn’t want to die,” she said. “And you could tell the last day that he was fighting it big time.”

Tennant had been diagnosed with stage 4 cholangiocarcinoma, a rare and aggressive cancer that began in his bile ducts before spreading elsewhere. By the time histotripsy became an option, his largest tumor was in his liver. No one could promise the treatment would have saved his life, but his loved ones believed it could have given him a fighting chance.

Instead, they say that chance was buried under paperwork, delays, and a system more focused on approvals than people.

The Tennant family’s heartbreaking story is shining a harsh light on prior authorization, one of the most hated features of the American healthcare system. For many patients, it means waiting for insurance companies to approve treatments already recommended by doctors. For some, those delays are frustrating. For others, they can be devastating.

A recent KFF report found that delaying or denying care can help drive profits for insurance companies. The American Medical Association also found in a December survey that more than a quarter of physicians said prior authorization had led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care. Even more alarming, 8% said those delays had resulted in disability, birth defects, or death.

Insurance industry defenders claim prior authorization is meant to serve as a safeguard against unnecessary treatments. But for families watching a loved one deteriorate while waiting for approval, that argument can ring hollow.

Tennant was insured through West Virginia’s Public Employees Insurance Agency, which works with UnitedHealthcare, according to KFF. The treatment denial was reportedly upheld not only by those agencies but also by an outside reviewer. Desperate to save him, the family even considered dipping into retirement savings to cover the cost themselves.

Then, after reporters from KFF and NBC News began asking questions, the decision was reversed.

But the reversal came too late to matter.

By then, Eric’s health had declined so badly that he was no longer eligible for the procedure his family had fought so hard to secure.

After his death, Rebecca said the cruelest part of it all is that no one will ever know what might have happened if the treatment had been approved when his doctors first asked for it.

“We’ll never know. That’s the thing,” she said. “Any lawyer for the insurance will say, ‘Well, you don’t know it would have helped.’ No. You took that chance away from us.”

For the Tennant family, this was never just about policy language or insurance reviews. It was about time — precious time — and a husband and father who never got the opportunity he was supposed to have.