A California family faced a shocking $100,000 bill after their baby was burned at home. The hospital didn’t have a burn unit or an ambulance, so the infant had to be airlifted.
ANTIOCH, Calif. — When 6-month-old Brody was badly burned by a rice cooker at home in October 2022, his mother, Jessica Farwell, rushed him to the nearest hospital. But the hospital couldn’t treat severe burns, and ambulances weren’t available.
“They gave him fentanyl because he was screaming, and said they didn’t have a burn unit,” Farwell said. “The ambulance wouldn’t be here for seven hours.”
Doctors decided Brody needed to go to Shriners Children’s Hospital in Sacramento. Driving wasn’t allowed because he was sedated, so the family had no choice but to take a 15-minute helicopter ride — costing nearly $90,000.
Farwell said she was terrified and in tears. “Seeing your baby in so much pain was the worst feeling,” she said.
When they landed, they faced another surprise: a short ambulance ride of just 0.3 miles to the hospital entrance cost $10,200. Consumer advocates criticized the charge. “A 0.3-mile drive should never cost $10,000,” said Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog.
Brody’s burns were treated, and he went home the next day. But months later, bills totaling over $100,000 arrived in the mail. Insurance covered less than half, leaving Farwell responsible for $57,929.80 for the helicopter and $7,327 for the ambulance.
“It was enraging,” she said. “We got fees for waiting, nighttime service — everything.”
After three years of calling the hospital, insurance, and ambulance company with no solution, ABC7’s investigative team helped. Both bills were finally waived.
“They said, ‘It’s done, we will never bill you again,’” Farwell said. “We just couldn’t believe it.”
California passed a law, AB 716, to protect patients from surprise ambulance bills, but Farwell’s 2022 case fell outside the new protections.
Pro Transport-1, the ambulance company, said it will accept partial payment and not pursue the rest. Blue Cross Blue Shield did not provide detailed comment on the case.
