FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thurs., Oct. 11, 2018
HEALTH CARE EXPERTS DISPUTE YOUNG’S CLAIMS ON THE ‘UPTON/YOUNG’ AMENDMENT AHEAD OF 2ND DEBATE
~ Includes quotes from American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Cancer Society and the AARP undermining this claim ~
Des Moines, IA – Ahead of the 2nd debate between Iowa’s 3rd Congressional candidates on Iowa Public Television tonight, leading health care experts disputed Congressman Young’s claims that the Upton/Young Amendment would have protected individuals with pre-existing conditions.
At the first debate at KMA radio station, Congressman Young claimed that his Upton/Young amendment to the American Health Care Act (AHCA), would have provided “four layers of protections,” for Iowans with pre-existing conditions. Leading health care experts, Leslie Dach, Founder of Protect Our Care, and Maura Calsyn, Managing Director of Health Care Policy at the Center for American Progress, disputed those claims and highlighted the devastating impact the AHCA would have had on Iowan families.
“David Young isn’t telling his constituents the truth about his votes on healthcare and pre-existing conditions. The bill he voted for in May of 2017 would hurt hundreds of thousands of Iowans while giving billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthy, and to big insurance and drug companies,” said Leslie Dach, the Founder of Protect Our Care. “And even worse, the Upton-Young Amendment he touts was purposely designed as a false cover story- as a cover up- on what this vote was really about.”
BY THE NUMBERS: Dach also pointed out that under the bill that Congressman Young voted for, in Iowa:
-
150,000 Iowans would have lost their coverage- including 38,000 the 3rd district.
-
90,000 Iowans with Medicaid would lose coverage, including 23,000 in the 3rd district.
-
2,5000 veterans in Iowa would have lost coverage.
-
$140,000 surcharge a year for patients with pre-existing conditions as serious as cancer.
-
$9,000 premium increase for older Iowans.
“And the AHCA that Congressman Young voted for last year absolutely fails this task because it would allow states to allow insurers to charge sick people more. And it also would allow them to drop the requirement for all essential health benefits. So, the kind of lip-service it pays to say that they protect consumers is pretty meaningless,” said Maura Calsyn, Managing Director of Health Care Policy at the Center for American Progress. “There was nothing in the AHCA that guaranteed that people with pre-existing conditions would have access to affordable coverage. There was no requirement for states to use that money for a high-risk pool, and even if they used the money for a high-risk pool it would be woefully inadequate.”
Additionally, Dach read quotes from the following organizations regarding the Upton / Young amendment:
American Medical Association said, “The history of high-risk pools demonstrates that Americans with pre-existing conditions will be stuck in second-class health care coverage – if they are able to obtain coverage at all.” [May 3, 2017]
American College of Physicians said, “we have grown even more concerned.” And they continue, “make no mistake this paltry increase in funding for high-risk pools that are already grossly underfunded by the bill will not make coverage affordable for sick people.” [May, 3, 2017]
Association of American Medical Colleges said, “patients will still be at risk leaving those with cancer, congenital heart conditions, mental illness, or other needs with access to coverage they cannot afford.” [May 3, 2017]
American Cancer Society said, “This Amendment is particularly egregious because it would further incent states to apply for waivers from current law market rules that protect patients with pre-existing conditions.” [May 3, 2017]
AARP said, “the Upton Amendment would do little to reduce the massive increases for those with pre-existing conditions.” [May 3, 2017]
