Knox County converting ambulance tax, taking 3/8 of health tax and asking library for same in order to save hospital

The Knox County Fiscal Court and the Knox County Board of Health reached a deal Monday to aid its debt-laden county hospital's recovery from bankruptcy by diverting, at least temporarily, 37.5 percent of local health tax revenue to the hospital, asking the local library to do likewise and converting an ambulance tax into a hospital tax.

The proposed agreement is "revenue neutral" and would not create any additional tax for Knox County residents while allowing the Knox County Hospital in Barbourville to stay open, writes Jeff Noble of The Times-Tribune in Corbin.

To save the hospital, the hospital board needs a tax of about 8 cents per $100 worth of property, County Judge-Executive J.M. Hall said. The deal would convert a 5-cent ambulance tax to a hospital tax, and the county health board has agreed to shift 1.5 cents of its 4-cent tax to the hospital. The library board is considering similar action, which would make up the total 8 cents, Hall told Noble.

Health Department Director Susan Liford said the two-year deal with the health board will begin in January 2014 and will be re-evaluated at the end of that period. The health department will be diverting $300,000 to $400,000 a year to the hospital, Noble reports.

"The board felt like we needed to help the hospital, and they were very adamant they did not want to put the health department in jeopardy and have no one here lose their jobs," Liford told Noble. "I think it’s the moral thing to do. And we need our hospital."

The hospital has a debt estimated at $23 million, though the Knox County Fiscal Court purchased it out of bankruptcy by in 2004 for just $7.2 million, according to documents analyzed by the Barbourville Mountain Advocate, Knox County's weekly newspaper. Last July, the fiscal court took over hospital operations of the hospital, borrowing $6 million to fund them, after the former owners filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy. (Mountain Advocate graphic; click on it for larger version)

The Knox County Fiscal Court and the Knox County Board of Health reached a deal Monday to aid its debt-laden county hospital's recovery from bankruptcy by diverting, at least temporarily, 37.5 percent of local health tax revenue to the hospital, asking the local library to do likewise and converting an ambulance tax into a hospital tax.

The proposed agreement is "revenue neutral" and would not create any additional tax for Knox County residents while allowing the Knox County Hospital in Barbourville to stay open, writes Jeff Noble of The Times-Tribune in Corbin.

To save the hospital, the hospital board needs a tax of about 8 cents per $100 worth of property, County Judge-Executive J.M. Hall said. The deal would convert a 5-cent ambulance tax to a hospital tax, and the county health board has agreed to shift 1.5 cents of its 4-cent tax to the hospital. The library board is considering similar action, which would make up the total 8 cents, Hall told Noble.

Health Department Director Susan Liford said the two-year deal with the health board will begin in January 2014 and will be re-evaluated at the end of that period. The health department will be diverting $300,000 to $400,000 a year to the hospital, Noble reports.

"The board felt like we needed to help the hospital, and they were very adamant they did not want to put the health department in jeopardy and have no one here lose their jobs," Liford told Noble. "I think it’s the moral thing to do. And we need our hospital."

The hospital has a debt estimated at $23 million, though the Knox County Fiscal Court purchased it out of bankruptcy by in 2004 for just $7.2 million, according to documents analyzed by the Barbourville Mountain Advocate, Knox County's weekly newspaper. Last July, the fiscal court took over hospital operations of the hospital, borrowing $6 million to fund them, after the former owners filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy. (Mountain Advocate graphic; click on it for larger version)

Read More

Health departments raise, or try to raise, tax rates to offset state cuts, higher benefit costs and Medicaid payment problems

Some county health departments are trying, and others may try, to increase property-tax rates to make up for Medicaid shortfalls, program cuts and the rising costs of employee benefits so they can continue providing essential public health services for their communities.

Anderson County Health Department Director Tim Wright has proposed a 33 percent rate increase from 3 cents per $100 of assessed property value to 4 cents per $100. The increase would add an estimated $150,000, which Wright says he would use to end employee furloughs and make up for $200,000 that has not been paid by the Kentucky Spirit managed-care company, reports Editor Ben Carlson of The Anderson News.

Many departments have already cut positions and implemented furloughs to compensate for Medicaid shortfalls, state program cuts and employee benefit costs, said Scott Lockard, past president of the Kentucky Public Health Association and director of the Clark County Health Department. Most departments have done everything possible to increase efficiency of the departments' resources, he said.

A recent tax increase in Boyle County will make property owners pay a little more to help fund the county health department. The fiscal court recently voted to raise the county's health tax from 2.4 cents per $100 to 2.5 cents.

As funding streams have changed, departments need additional revenue sources, said Brent Blevins, director of the Boyle County Health Department. Blevins said without the rate increase, the already short-staffed department would have to cut services.

Declining property values during the recession have decreased tax revenue, said Marcia Hodge, director of the Garrard County Health Department. It proposed a tax rate increase from 4 cents to 4.25 cents in September that was estimated to bring in about $21,000, but the fiscal court did not approve it, she said.

Another problem that health departments face, Hodge said, is that they are required to participate in the state's insurance and retirement system. Over the 12 years she has been at the department, retirement contributions have increased from 4 percent to 25 percent, while costs of fringe benefits have more than doubled while salaries have only increased 10 percent, she said.

The Floyd County Health Department increased its tax rate last September for the first time in 20 years, primarily because of increased costs of employee benefits and department funding cuts, said Thursa Sloan, director of the department.

Sloan said she anticipates a big change in the services that health departments provide over the next 10 years.  Primary care will take a much more preventive approach, she said, and health departments will have to pull back in such services and go back to the basics.

Some county health departments are trying, and others may try, to increase property-tax rates to make up for Medicaid shortfalls, program cuts and the rising costs of employee benefits so they can continue providing essential public health services for their communities.

Anderson County Health Department Director Tim Wright has proposed a 33 percent rate increase from 3 cents per $100 of assessed property value to 4 cents per $100. The increase would add an estimated $150,000, which Wright says he would use to end employee furloughs and make up for $200,000 that has not been paid by the Kentucky Spirit managed-care company, reports Editor Ben Carlson of The Anderson News.

Many departments have already cut positions and implemented furloughs to compensate for Medicaid shortfalls, state program cuts and employee benefit costs, said Scott Lockard, past president of the Kentucky Public Health Association and director of the Clark County Health Department. Most departments have done everything possible to increase efficiency of the departments' resources, he said.

A recent tax increase in Boyle County will make property owners pay a little more to help fund the county health department. The fiscal court recently voted to raise the county's health tax from 2.4 cents per $100 to 2.5 cents.

As funding streams have changed, departments need additional revenue sources, said Brent Blevins, director of the Boyle County Health Department. Blevins said without the rate increase, the already short-staffed department would have to cut services.

Declining property values during the recession have decreased tax revenue, said Marcia Hodge, director of the Garrard County Health Department. It proposed a tax rate increase from 4 cents to 4.25 cents in September that was estimated to bring in about $21,000, but the fiscal court did not approve it, she said.

Another problem that health departments face, Hodge said, is that they are required to participate in the state's insurance and retirement system. Over the 12 years she has been at the department, retirement contributions have increased from 4 percent to 25 percent, while costs of fringe benefits have more than doubled while salaries have only increased 10 percent, she said.

The Floyd County Health Department increased its tax rate last September for the first time in 20 years, primarily because of increased costs of employee benefits and department funding cuts, said Thursa Sloan, director of the department.

Sloan said she anticipates a big change in the services that health departments provide over the next 10 years.  Primary care will take a much more preventive approach, she said, and health departments will have to pull back in such services and go back to the basics.

Read More

Commission says drastic changes to doctor pay and cuts to wasteful services can fix Medicare problem without tax hikes

A national advisory panel says “drastic changes” in how Medicare reimburses doctors and other providers are needed to shore up Medicare's finances, improve patient outcomes and rein in health care costs, and there is no need to seek more taxpayer money.

Medicare needs $138 billion over the next decade to avoid steep cuts in physician pay, and avoiding those cuts has become an annual scramble in Congress known as "the doc fix."  A panel dominated by internal-medicine specialists, The National Commission on Physician Payment Reform, has concluded that reduction of wasteful medical services can help solve the problem and "our nation cannot control runaway medical spending without fundamentally changing how physicians are paid," it says in its report.

Source: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Congressional
Budget Office, Budget and Economic Outlook, January 2011

The U.S. spends nearly $3 trillion a year on health care, and that level of spending is unsustainable. The report says that as a proportion of the federal budget, the cost of Medicare has risen from 3.5 percent in 1975 to 15.1 percent in 2010 in 2010). In 2020, it is projected to consume 17 percent, or 4 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product.

Recognizing the way that physicians are paid contributes substantially to the high cost of health care, The Society of General Internal Medicine convened the commission in March 2012 to make recommendations for payment reform. According to the report, some of the factors that drive up health care expenditures are:

• Fee-for-service reimbursement
• Consolidation in the health-care industry
• Reliance on technology and expensive care
• Reliance on a high proportion of specialists
• Paying more for the same service or procedure when done in a hospital setting as opposed to an outpatient setting
• A disproportionate percentage of health care spending directed to a small number of people who are very sick and costly to treat
• High administrative costs
• Fear of malpractice lawsuits
• Fraud and abuse

The commission says increased taxes are not needed to fix the Medicare problem, and the Medicaid shortfall could be entirely found by reducing overuse of services within Medicare. See the chart to the right for a breakdown of those excess medical costs.

The commission developed 12 recommendations to reduce health costs, calling for drastic changes to the current fee-for-service payment system and a five-year transition to a physician payment system that rewards quality and value-based care and not the volume of care.

The 12 recommendations were based on the principles that payment reform should improve care quality and efficiency, encourage care for the medically disadvantaged, reduce marginal and ineffective services, increase transparency to the public and should reward patient-centered comprehensive care. (Click here to see those recommendations)

A national advisory panel says “drastic changes” in how Medicare reimburses doctors and other providers are needed to shore up Medicare's finances, improve patient outcomes and rein in health care costs, and there is no need to seek more taxpayer money.

Medicare needs $138 billion over the next decade to avoid steep cuts in physician pay, and avoiding those cuts has become an annual scramble in Congress known as "the doc fix."  A panel dominated by internal-medicine specialists, The National Commission on Physician Payment Reform, has concluded that reduction of wasteful medical services can help solve the problem and "our nation cannot control runaway medical spending without fundamentally changing how physicians are paid," it says in its report.

Source: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Congressional
Budget Office, Budget and Economic Outlook, January 2011

The U.S. spends nearly $3 trillion a year on health care, and that level of spending is unsustainable. The report says that as a proportion of the federal budget, the cost of Medicare has risen from 3.5 percent in 1975 to 15.1 percent in 2010 in 2010). In 2020, it is projected to consume 17 percent, or 4 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product.

Recognizing the way that physicians are paid contributes substantially to the high cost of health care, The Society of General Internal Medicine convened the commission in March 2012 to make recommendations for payment reform. According to the report, some of the factors that drive up health care expenditures are:

• Fee-for-service reimbursement
• Consolidation in the health-care industry
• Reliance on technology and expensive care
• Reliance on a high proportion of specialists
• Paying more for the same service or procedure when done in a hospital setting as opposed to an outpatient setting
• A disproportionate percentage of health care spending directed to a small number of people who are very sick and costly to treat
• High administrative costs
• Fear of malpractice lawsuits
• Fraud and abuse

The commission says increased taxes are not needed to fix the Medicare problem, and the Medicaid shortfall could be entirely found by reducing overuse of services within Medicare. See the chart to the right for a breakdown of those excess medical costs.

The commission developed 12 recommendations to reduce health costs, calling for drastic changes to the current fee-for-service payment system and a five-year transition to a physician payment system that rewards quality and value-based care and not the volume of care.

The 12 recommendations were based on the principles that payment reform should improve care quality and efficiency, encourage care for the medically disadvantaged, reduce marginal and ineffective services, increase transparency to the public and should reward patient-centered comprehensive care. (Click here to see those recommendations)

Read More

The world is getting fatter, but Kentucky's rate of obesity is two and a half times the world rate

Take no solace from The Economist, which proclaims in its yearly analysis-and-prognostication issue that this is the year world leaders will take on worldwide obesity because, writes Charlotte Howard, "they will realize something must be done."

So, no, it is not just you, Kentucky. In fact, Howard, the health-care correspondent for the magazine, writes that 30 percent of Mexico's adult population is obese. That is precisely the same percentage of Kentuckians that were considered obese by a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Trust for America's Health analysis released in August. (We ranked sixth fattest state nationwide.) It is also the same percentage of Chinese adults that are, as Howard put it, "too wide" -- a term that Howard uses here to include the overweight as well as the obese.

But there is no room to crow here. Kentucky is far ahead of the trend. Only 12 percent of the world counts as obese today. We beat that two and half times over. (The number of Kentuckians who were merely overweight was not calculated or included in the figures in the study.) A study released in September by the same group found that if trends continue, 60 percent of Kentuckians will be obese by 2030. The World Health Organization's estimate of the world's obesity was at 15 percent by 2020.

The Economist folks favors an approach that a democratic path to better health and fiscal sanity, given the health care cost ramifications of obesity. They like a tax on soda -- it's pure sugar, no real nutrition. They like subsidies to make fresh produce cheaper. And they like better school lunches and labeling, labeling, labeling so consumers will make better choices.

Take no solace from The Economist, which proclaims in its yearly analysis-and-prognostication issue that this is the year world leaders will take on worldwide obesity because, writes Charlotte Howard, "they will realize something must be done."

So, no, it is not just you, Kentucky. In fact, Howard, the health-care correspondent for the magazine, writes that 30 percent of Mexico's adult population is obese. That is precisely the same percentage of Kentuckians that were considered obese by a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Trust for America's Health analysis released in August. (We ranked sixth fattest state nationwide.) It is also the same percentage of Chinese adults that are, as Howard put it, "too wide" -- a term that Howard uses here to include the overweight as well as the obese.

But there is no room to crow here. Kentucky is far ahead of the trend. Only 12 percent of the world counts as obese today. We beat that two and half times over. (The number of Kentuckians who were merely overweight was not calculated or included in the figures in the study.) A study released in September by the same group found that if trends continue, 60 percent of Kentuckians will be obese by 2030. The World Health Organization's estimate of the world's obesity was at 15 percent by 2020.

The Economist folks favors an approach that a democratic path to better health and fiscal sanity, given the health care cost ramifications of obesity. They like a tax on soda -- it's pure sugar, no real nutrition. They like subsidies to make fresh produce cheaper. And they like better school lunches and labeling, labeling, labeling so consumers will make better choices.

Read More

Biggest problem with health-care reform law is advocates' poor sales job to the American public, Rep. John Yarmuth tells C-J

By Tara Kaprowy
Kentucky Health News

The biggest problem with the federal health-care reform law is not the law itself, but the fact that "We've never done as good a job as we could have" in explaining what it is about, Democratic U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth of Louisville told the editorial board of The Courier-Journal Friday.

In his lengthy interview, Yarmuth said the problem started at the law's inception when President Obama outlined his parameters but  let Congress decide what the bill should be. "The challenge was explaining what the bill even was because we didn't know what it was going to be," he said.

The issue was compounded by the fact that, unlike energy legislation where its "impact is relatively uniform," with health care "everyone wants to know how it will affect you and your family ... and it's all different," Yarmuth said. "It's hard to market something individually to 300 million people."

Also contributing to the problem is the complexity of the subject itself, which Yarmuth likened to "the biggest Rubik's cube that ever existed," since "Every time you move one piece, 100 pieces move."

That has resulted in deeply-seated misconceptions about the law that are difficult to undo. The biggest, he said, is "that it is some form of government takeover." Those with that view note that the law's individual mandate in the law will force people to buy insurance or pay a fine, and the law will impose new rules on health-insurance companies and put many other controls on the system.

But Yarmuth argues the law uses "free enterprise and competition" to "provide more affordable care for individuals." Indeed, state insurance exchanges will feature different benefits packages from private companies from which people who qualify for the exchange can choose. People who qualify for the exchange — those who earn up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level — will be given subsidies in the form of tax breaks to help pay for their premiums. "The reason why the Republicans don't have an alternative is Obamacare was their alternative," Yarmuth said. "This was their plan: creating competition among insurers and letting them compete for individual business."

Another misconception is that people who don't have health insurance are "deadbeats," Yarmuth said. But he said 37 percent of Americans who are uninsured make over $50,000 a year and almost 20 percent make over $75,000 a year (those percentages are confirmed here). "No, these are solid citizens," he said. He pointed out that all families pay the cost of those who are uninsured, adding that an estimated $1,000 of every health insurance policy goes toward paying for uncompensated care.

Yarmuth said in Kentucky nearly $600 million is spent on uncompensated care each year. (A Kentucky Hospital Association report estimated it is far higher: $1.67 billion in 2010.) Regardless of the figure, Yarmuth said losses could be offset by expanding Medicaid, a claim supported by a report by the Urban Institute. Expansion would cover almost 300,000 Kentuckians and would cost the state $515 million through 2019, he said. "It will bring in $12 billion of federal money," he said. "Is that a good trade-off?"

Asked how provisions in the law would be paid for, Yarmuth acknowledged "If you're adding 30 million more people, it's going to add cost to the system." Ultimately, costs will continue to go up but "less than they otherwise would," he said. He referred to pre-law estimates by the Congressional Budget Office that the cost of employer-based insurance would double to $25,000 a year for a family of four, but the law seems to have slowed that trend. Yarmuth referred to an article published in the journal Health Affairs that indicated that between 2010 and 2011, overall national health-care expenditures increased by 3.9 percent. "That's the lowest rate of growth in the last 50 years," he said. "It is having an effect." The CBO estimated the law will reduce the deficit over the next 10 years by $130 billion, with an estimated $1.2 trillion saved in the second 10, Yarmuth noted. "We all knew we were on an unsustainable path."

But most still don't know that, and on Saturday, a day after the Yarmuth interview, the C-J editorial board criticized Democrats for not doing a better job getting their message out about the new law: "The problem is partially that the law is complex and 2,000 pages long. It's partially that the Republicans have successfully put the Democrats on the defensive, forcing them to defend the law to people who have already had the GOP message driving into their heads. But it's also that the Democrats don't trust that the American people will be willing or able to understand them when they defend the health-care law."

By Tara Kaprowy
Kentucky Health News

The biggest problem with the federal health-care reform law is not the law itself, but the fact that "We've never done as good a job as we could have" in explaining what it is about, Democratic U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth of Louisville told the editorial board of The Courier-Journal Friday.

In his lengthy interview, Yarmuth said the problem started at the law's inception when President Obama outlined his parameters but  let Congress decide what the bill should be. "The challenge was explaining what the bill even was because we didn't know what it was going to be," he said.

The issue was compounded by the fact that, unlike energy legislation where its "impact is relatively uniform," with health care "everyone wants to know how it will affect you and your family ... and it's all different," Yarmuth said. "It's hard to market something individually to 300 million people."

Also contributing to the problem is the complexity of the subject itself, which Yarmuth likened to "the biggest Rubik's cube that ever existed," since "Every time you move one piece, 100 pieces move."

That has resulted in deeply-seated misconceptions about the law that are difficult to undo. The biggest, he said, is "that it is some form of government takeover." Those with that view note that the law's individual mandate in the law will force people to buy insurance or pay a fine, and the law will impose new rules on health-insurance companies and put many other controls on the system.

But Yarmuth argues the law uses "free enterprise and competition" to "provide more affordable care for individuals." Indeed, state insurance exchanges will feature different benefits packages from private companies from which people who qualify for the exchange can choose. People who qualify for the exchange — those who earn up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level — will be given subsidies in the form of tax breaks to help pay for their premiums. "The reason why the Republicans don't have an alternative is Obamacare was their alternative," Yarmuth said. "This was their plan: creating competition among insurers and letting them compete for individual business."

Another misconception is that people who don't have health insurance are "deadbeats," Yarmuth said. But he said 37 percent of Americans who are uninsured make over $50,000 a year and almost 20 percent make over $75,000 a year (those percentages are confirmed here). "No, these are solid citizens," he said. He pointed out that all families pay the cost of those who are uninsured, adding that an estimated $1,000 of every health insurance policy goes toward paying for uncompensated care.

Yarmuth said in Kentucky nearly $600 million is spent on uncompensated care each year. (A Kentucky Hospital Association report estimated it is far higher: $1.67 billion in 2010.) Regardless of the figure, Yarmuth said losses could be offset by expanding Medicaid, a claim supported by a report by the Urban Institute. Expansion would cover almost 300,000 Kentuckians and would cost the state $515 million through 2019, he said. "It will bring in $12 billion of federal money," he said. "Is that a good trade-off?"

Asked how provisions in the law would be paid for, Yarmuth acknowledged "If you're adding 30 million more people, it's going to add cost to the system." Ultimately, costs will continue to go up but "less than they otherwise would," he said. He referred to pre-law estimates by the Congressional Budget Office that the cost of employer-based insurance would double to $25,000 a year for a family of four, but the law seems to have slowed that trend. Yarmuth referred to an article published in the journal Health Affairs that indicated that between 2010 and 2011, overall national health-care expenditures increased by 3.9 percent. "That's the lowest rate of growth in the last 50 years," he said. "It is having an effect." The CBO estimated the law will reduce the deficit over the next 10 years by $130 billion, with an estimated $1.2 trillion saved in the second 10, Yarmuth noted. "We all knew we were on an unsustainable path."

But most still don't know that, and on Saturday, a day after the Yarmuth interview, the C-J editorial board criticized Democrats for not doing a better job getting their message out about the new law: "The problem is partially that the law is complex and 2,000 pages long. It's partially that the Republicans have successfully put the Democrats on the defensive, forcing them to defend the law to people who have already had the GOP message driving into their heads. But it's also that the Democrats don't trust that the American people will be willing or able to understand them when they defend the health-care law."

Read More

Does Obamacare tax the middle class?

U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell speaks at
a Rotary Club meeting in Louisville.
(C-J photo by Michael Clevenger)

With Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell calling the federal health-care reform law a tax on the middle class, Courier-Journal Washington correspondent James R. Carroll collects the findings of independent fact-checking services to assess whether McConnell is accurate.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 4 million people would pay the tax or penalty for not being covered by insurance in 2016, which translates to about 1.2 percent of the population. But Glenn Kessler of The Fact Checker at The Washington Post, relying on CBO estimates, reported "that 16 million people will receive subsidies or tax credits to help pay for health coverage — about 5 percent of the population."

"It's worth noting that the health law involves more taxes than just a penalty on the uninsured," Kessler notes, including an excise tax on plans with very high premiums; fees for manufacturers and insurers; higher Medicare payroll taxes for people who make more than $200,000 a year; a tax on manufacturers of medical devices; and a tax on indoor tanning services. All told, "it's a stretch to say that any of these taxes will affect the middle class."

McConnell's assertion that President Obama is raising taxes with the individual mandate is also a double-edged sword: a similar penalty was passed with the health-care overhaul in Massachusetts while Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was governor. On that point, McConnell said "Romney will have to speak for himself." Last week, Romney said requiring all Americans to buy health insurance is equivalent to a tax, but that ran counter to how he viewed it earlier in the week.

McConnell told the Louisville Rotary Club last week that repealing the law would be his top priority if Republicans win the presidency in November, reports Chris Kenning for The Courier-Journal. (Read more)

U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell speaks at
a Rotary Club meeting in Louisville.
(C-J photo by Michael Clevenger)

With Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell calling the federal health-care reform law a tax on the middle class, Courier-Journal Washington correspondent James R. Carroll collects the findings of independent fact-checking services to assess whether McConnell is accurate.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 4 million people would pay the tax or penalty for not being covered by insurance in 2016, which translates to about 1.2 percent of the population. But Glenn Kessler of The Fact Checker at The Washington Post, relying on CBO estimates, reported "that 16 million people will receive subsidies or tax credits to help pay for health coverage — about 5 percent of the population."

"It's worth noting that the health law involves more taxes than just a penalty on the uninsured," Kessler notes, including an excise tax on plans with very high premiums; fees for manufacturers and insurers; higher Medicare payroll taxes for people who make more than $200,000 a year; a tax on manufacturers of medical devices; and a tax on indoor tanning services. All told, "it's a stretch to say that any of these taxes will affect the middle class."

McConnell's assertion that President Obama is raising taxes with the individual mandate is also a double-edged sword: a similar penalty was passed with the health-care overhaul in Massachusetts while Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was governor. On that point, McConnell said "Romney will have to speak for himself." Last week, Romney said requiring all Americans to buy health insurance is equivalent to a tax, but that ran counter to how he viewed it earlier in the week.

McConnell told the Louisville Rotary Club last week that repealing the law would be his top priority if Republicans win the presidency in November, reports Chris Kenning for The Courier-Journal. (Read more)

Read More