A family in Redwood City, California, is grappling with unexpected medical bills after their daughter participated in a COVID-19 treatment study. The case raises questions about transparency and communication in clinical trials, especially regarding coverage and costs.
Maria Fraboni’s daughter tested positive for COVID-19 in 2022. Shortly after her diagnosis, she received an unsolicited call from Stanford Health Care’s Infusion Center. The representative informed her about a study aimed at alleviating COVID symptoms and reducing long-term risks, assuring her that participation, which included three transfusions, would incur no costs. Trusting this information, the family agreed to join the study.
In the months that followed, however, the Fraboni family received bills totaling over $6,900. “I was just heartbroken. I mean, it’s a good chunk of money,” Maria Fraboni expressed. Despite her efforts to resolve the situation with Stanford Health Care, she was informed that her daughter’s bills were due to a deductible.
Fraboni contested this explanation, pointing out that state law at the time mandated full coverage for COVID-19 treatments. A patient relations manager confirmed that the treatment should have been free and suggested that Fraboni file a claim with her insurance provider, Cigna.
Fraboni submitted the required paperwork to Cigna twice but faced significant challenges. “I kept calling Cigna… I couldn’t get a live person,” she recalled, expressing her frustration over the drawn-out process.
Stanford Health Care later stated that they were working with the family, but the collection agency offered to reduce the bill if it was paid immediately. Exhausted by the ordeal, Fraboni paid a revised amount of more than $3,900 to avoid further complications.
Cigna addressed the situation, clarifying that while California law mandated full coverage for COVID-19 testing and preventive services without cost-sharing in April 2022, it did not require the same for therapeutics like Veklury. They acknowledged the confusion surrounding coverage information provided by some clinical trial teams, stating, “It is unfortunate that some clinical trial teams provided inaccurate information about coverage to their participants.”
Contrary to Cigna’s statement, a notice from the California Department of Insurance indicated that health insurers regulated by the state were indeed required to cover the treatment without charge during the time of Fraboni’s daughter’s transfusions.
“For me, it’s not about the money; it’s just the principle. What was intended to be a positive contribution turned into this nightmare,” Fraboni said.
In a recent update, Stanford Health Care confirmed they are in the process of refunding the amount paid by the Fraboni family as a courtesy, with notification expected within a few weeks. Cigna encouraged customers to verify their coverage prior to treatment, stating that their customer service advocates are available around the clock for assistance.
This incident shines a light on the complexities of clinical trials and the importance of clear communication regarding financial obligations, especially during a public health crisis.
