A southwest suburban mom is stuck in an ongoing insurance coverage dispute related to her nearly one-year-old son’s birth that centers around how he was delivered.
When NBC 5 Responds met baby Angleo at his family’s home in Lemont, he was cooing, crawling, and reaching for the camera.
“I fought so hard to bring my third child to life,” Valerie Timpone told NBC 5 Responds Reporter PJ Randhawa.
Timpone suffers from a blood disorder. After birthing her second child and experiencing severe complications, her doctor advised against future pregnancies, she explained.
Determined to have one more child, Timpone found a surrogate willing to take the journey with her.
“We just kind of clicked,” the mom explained with a smile on her face.
Months later, Angelo was on the way.
The gestational surrogate’s pregnancy went smoothly, according to Timpone. But two weeks after Angelo came home from the hospital, the family received an explanation of benefits stating they’d owe more than $9,000 in out-of-pocket expenses for Angelo’s nursery care. That’s on top of the surrogacy costs they were already footing.
Timpone says the whole surrogacy process, along with the unexpected hospital expenses, created a financial burden for the family.
“We took out a home equity loan. So, there’s a lien on our home. We are paying it off as best as we can, but this [insurance denial] is totally unexpected,” explained Timpone.
Written in Timpone’s Blue Cross Blue Shield Federal Employee Program Policy under the “General Exclusions” section is a line she didn’t notice while planning her surrogacy journey. It states the plan does not cover services related to surrogacy including “routine nursery services for the infant upon delivery.”
Timone explained, “the reasoning was because I physically did not have the child”.
She filed an appeal with Blue Cross Blue Shield, but it was denied. The insurance company sent her a denial letter stating in part, “We cover routine nursery care of the newborn when performed during the covered portion of the mother’s maternity stay…”
“They said, ‘well, this bill is coming, prepare for it. You are 100% liable for it,’” said Timpone.
As she waited for the bill to arrive in the mail, she called NBC 5 Responds for help. “I just think it’s a huge gap that should be addressed and everyone should know about it.”
“I’ve never seen anything like this.”
Chicago attorney Nidhi Desai works with families who are turning to gestational surrogates to expand their families. NBC Chicago got her take on Timpone’s coverage gap.
“It’s been almost 30 years I’ve been doing this and I have never seen anything like this,” said Desai, who has no tie to the family.
She also questioned under what authority somebody’s routine medical costs could be excluded upon birth. She explained, a parent’s dependent coverage should cover a birth regardless of how the child was born.
“I would like to think it’s just a big misunderstanding, that there’s something in the language that somebody misinterpreted,” Desai explained.
NBC 5 Responds looked through Timpone’s insurance policy coverage going back to 2023, and found it appears this surrogacy exclusion was recently added in 2025.
When NBC 5 Responds reached out to Blue Cross Blue Shield about Timpone’s case, the insurance company said “To protect member privacy, FEP does not discuss details of member cases publicly”.
Two months after calling NBC 5 Responds and nearly one year after Angelo was born, Timpone received a statement from the hospital in the mail reflecting a $0 balance for Angelo’s birth. It’s unclear why she no longer owes the $9,000 hospital bill. A reason wasn’t given.
Hence then, the article about insurance company denies coverage of newborn services to baby delivered by surrogate was published today ( ) and is available on NBC Chicago ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Insurance company denies coverage of newborn services to baby delivered by surrogate )
Also on site :