Insurers in trouble for the wrong reason: Wall St. wants them to rip you off for even MORE!

There is good news and bad news regarding health/medical insurance. Let’s start with the good:

In his Substack, “Health Care Uncovered” from August 8, 2024, Wendell Potter reports that “Wall St. is disenchanted with Medicare Advantage Plans”. This is good news in the sense that it is good when anyone is disenchanted with these plans, or any aspect of the for-profit health insurance industry. Potter notes that both CVS/Aetna and CIGNA disappointed Wall St. investors with inadequate (from their point of view) profits, compared to a year ago. I also am disenchanted, but for different reasons than Wall St. I am upset that these for-profit insurers continue to rake off such a huge amount of money that was intended, by the workers and employers who paid it, to be spend on actually delivering health care. Investors are upset that these health insurers are not raking in even more.

Potter notes that Aetna president Brian Kane resigned as a result, but appropriately writes:

I am much more concerned about the health and well-being of the 4.3 million people enrolled in CVS’s MA plans and the 6.2 million in Humana’s plans. Sadly, most will find they’re trapped in a circle of hell created by the insurance industry, unable to stay in their current Medicare Advantage plan but also unable to return to traditional Medicare because of what for them will be unaffordable Medicare supplemental policies (most of which are sold by the same big insurers that sell MA plans). Seniors have six months from the date they’re eligible for Medicare to buy a supplemental (Medigap) policy to cover out-of-pocket expenses. If they’ve been enrolled in an MA plan longer than six months, they’ll have to go through medical underwriting. That means that if they’re being treated for much of anything or, God forbid, have a “preexisting condition,” they’ll have to pay an arm and a leg for Medigap policy.

A similar piece of good news is not particularly about Medicare Advantage plans, but the overall health insurance industry/scam, in a story about data-analytics firm MultiPlan (‘Revenues Down and Stock Battered as Data Firm Faces Scrutiny’, NY Times, August 16, 2024). This one is a little harder to understand than the CVS/Aetna and CIGNA stories. They are about the fact that while they are making beaucoup bucks, it is not as much as investors would like. In the MultiPlan case, we have a company that worked for insurers to get reimbursements down (that is, to pay doctors and other healthcare providers less) and made money from it. For example, if a doctor billed $100 and MultiPlan told the insurer to only pay $50, that’s more money for the insurer (and MultiPlan), and the patient can be on the hook for the other $50. (Of course, it’s never only $100, or $50.) Since they do this mainly for “out of network” care the amount that you (the patient) can get stuck with having to pay can be – a great deal. (This can happen even when you choose an “in-network” doctor and hospital, since other doctors – like in the ER, or radiology, or even the “assistant surgeon” – can be out of network. And the ambulance almost always is).

This article was a follow-up to an earlier exposé in the NY Times ‘Insurers Reap Hidden Fees by Slashing Payments. You May Get the Bill.,’ April 24, 2024, in which the amount the patient could get stuck having to pay was as much as $100,000 – or more. The good result of this first article was a lot of opprobrium aimed at MultiPlan, resulting in some insurers being more reluctant to use them (because of the bad publicity, not because they save them money; apparently they can use other less-notorious data analytics firms to save them money), so MultiPlan is in trouble as the more recent NY Times article documents. Good. I love to see them in trouble.

The bad news is that it is likely to be you and other regular people who are screwed. There is already evidence that the pressure from investors to go back to making not just great but obscene profit margins is affecting CIGNA, CVS/Aetna, and other insurers, who are denying more claims, making it even harder to get the care that you need. Potter notes that

Humana said last week it planned to jettison “a few hundred thousand” of its Medicare Advantage enrollees that have become unprofitable. CVS says it will get rid of about 10% of its MA enrollment, which would be around 430,000 of America’s seniors and disabled people.

That’s a lot of seniors who will lose their medical coverage. I have often been critical of Medicare Advantage plans (sometimes called, more accurately, Medicare Dis-Advantage), which are NOT Medicare but are private insurance plans, usually HMOs or PPOs, paid for by Medicare funds. One of the major reasons for my criticism is that because they are private insurance, they can (and often do) deny coverage for care even when the care is approved by Medicare. Recent legislation has required these MA plans to cover Medicare-approved care, but in fact they still often deny claims. Indeed, it is often the modus operandi for these companies. They may approve the claim if you appeal, but the vast majority of clients do not appeal, and probably don’t even know that they can. If fined by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) it becomes a “cost of doing business.”

But the “jettisoning” of hundreds of thousands that Potter refers to illustrates another big problem with MA. As with all insurance – not just medical – companies make money by collecting premiums and paying as few claims as possible (although medical insurance companies seem to have taken this to the extreme). One effective way to do this for healthcare is to insure healthy people. They, or their (usually former, if they’re on Medicare) employer pay the premiums but they don’t cost much money in claims. And they love getting free eyeglasses and hearing aids and gym memberships, which cost the insurance companies very little. The problem is that sometimes previously healthy people get sick, and this becomes more and more common as they age. Remember that in any given year approximately 5% of the people account for about 50% of healthcare costs, but they are not necessarily the same people the next year. Some folks get better, some folks get worse, and some really sick people die. MA plans have long “encouraged” their sickest (= most costly) patients to consider switching to traditional Medicare. Now they will be more than encouraging; they’ll drop those high-cost “losers”. Maybe you.

The MultiPlan case got good (that is, bad) coverage from the original April NY Times investigation, which resulted in it losing business as reported by that newspaper in August. But the insurers will get another data analytics firm to try to screw doctors and other providers, and the patient, you, will still be caught on the hook for many of those dollars. The system is not set up to help or protect you, and it has relatively few sanctions against companies whose business model is to find any way to screw you that will make them more money, and to use that money to hire lawyers and others to find the loopholes and to pay the politicians to ensure that they are not closed too tightly.

It’s kind of like a sport where one team able and willing to bring in ringers, violate the rules, commit all sorts of fouls and infractions, and at worst get a slap on the wrist for it. Not a fair game, but heck, that team’s owners are paying off the referees and the league.

There’s another way to do it. Absolutely strict regulation to ensure the interests of patients are the ones that are protected, and protecting the profits of the insurers is given zero weight. Penalties that are strictly enforced, and draconian and include going out of business. Even better: prohibiting profit making in any healthcare endeavor. In some countries, like Switzerland, there are private insurers, but they all have to offer the same comprehensive product, charge the same rates, and be non-profit. So how do they compete? Customer service, can you imagine!?

I like that approach!

PBMs, pharmacies, and insurance companies: Three legs of a many-legged stool. Or cabal.

PBMs. What are they? Pharmacy benefit managers. Oh, thanks. That clears up a lot!

Well, they are big and important in the health care industry, which should give you a clue: they are somewhere between “not about helping you” and “evil”. Unfortunately, this describes almost every big corporation (pharmacies, insurers, pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, and large health care “provider” corporations) that is involved in health care, or more realistically, sucking money out of the public (directly from you or your government) that was intended to provide health care.

But, back to PBMs. They are, as the name suggests, “managers”, in this and many other cases another word for “middlemen”, set up to be intermediaries between the pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies and insurance companies and you, the consumer (remember that last, “you the consumer”, the one entity in this calculus that has very little weight?). Much of what PBMs do, and a lot of the things that they do that make them more money (and thus could be called “abuses”, since they are not about the only important thing, maximizing the health of the people) are described in this piece from American Progress, “5 things to know about pharmacy benefit managers”. In addition to receiving payments for their services from insurance companies (presumably a legitimate fee, although perhaps for a service that benefits the insurers and not you, and as we shall see below, another scam as many of them are owned by insurance companies!), they also have other little “tricks”. Pharmaceutical companies (another huge pig at the trough of health care dollars) frequently offer discounts in the form of rebates on the cost of expensive drugs – and often, to be fair, negotiated by the PBM – intended to help the consumer. But the PBMs often keep a portion of that rebate. More insidious is that this rebate is a percentage of the price, so the higher the price, the more the PBM gets to pocket. This may (and often does) lead to their “preferred drug lists” having the most expensive drugs as preferred. While this does not cost the patient more (because it puts it in a lower tier), it does make more money for the PBM.

PBMs also engage in “spread pricing” where the amount they receive from the insurer for a drug is more than they pay the pharmacies. And they keep it. And the cost of your insurance and your co-pays can go up to “repay” the insurer for the payments that they make to the PBM. Most of us are familiar with paying for things at a discount, only to discover that the discount is from an inflated “list price”, which already includes a sizeable profit for the vendor. Nowhere is this as common as in drugs; if you have a drug plan (say, Medicare Part D) you are likely to discover that what you pay for your drugs (your co-pay) doesn’t count to your annual deductible, since the insurance company and PBM (now often one and the same) have decided you are already getting a good deal from the discounts that they have received, even when they are pocketing the spread. In 2018, Ohio discovered its Medicaid program was paying $220 million more to PBMs than the latter were paying to the pharmacies for them! Entrepreneurship? Criminal theft?

In a recent piece on his substack, Health Care Un-Covered, health insurance industry whistleblower Wendell Potter describes how ‘The PBM-insurer mafia comes for community pharmacies’. The first important item is contained in the title – “PBM-insurer mafia” – now these two entities are not in competition but in collaboration as two of the “Big 3” PBMs are now owned by insurance companies (OptumRx by United Health and ExpressScripts by Cigna), and the third (Caremark) by a pharmaceutical chain, CVS. This follow the pattern prevalent in all industries, but particularly in “health care” of increasing consolidation, vertical integration, and monopoly power. As Potter describes, one victim of this has been independent community pharmacies. Why such independents are good and of value is eloquently described by one such pharmacist quoted in his piece, so I  won’t re-quote it here; suffice it to say it is what you can imagine is lacking in corporate chains – personal service to people. The benefit to the PBMs of putting independent pharmacies out of business and shunting prescription business to the chains is obvious for CVS/Caremark, but also true for ExpressScripts since it has a deal with Walgreens. And, of course, for all in insurance companies to their owned mail-order pharmacies (which you may get regular emails urging you to use). As is always the case, the lowest income people (who often have the worst insurance coverage, or have Medicaid) are the worst hit, but increasingly insurers and their PBMs have found ways to screw all of us.

There has been increasing political pushback, finally. ‘Last year, Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said that “PBMs are modern gangsters.”’ This year, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) tried to get new legislation passed; ‘“The time for PBM reform was yesterday,” Wyden said. “It’s past time to crack down on the shady practices of these pharma middlemen that result in higher drug prices for consumers and threaten pharmacies across Oregon and nationwide. I’ll be working around the clock to get this done as soon as possible.”’ But it hasn’t yet passed; it is hard to get consensus on anything in Congress these days, and the insurance companies and PBMs have very powerful (and generous!) lobbies. ‘In recent months, an independent pharmacy, Osterhaus Pharmacy, in Iowa, sued the major PBMs over DIR* fees. In its lawsuit against UnitedHealth, it stated, “This vertical consolidation has served OptumRx well. It now controls not just the pricing of drugs, not just the selection of the drugs covered by Part D Plans, and not just the selection of pharmacy services providers in each Part D network; OptumRx also controls access to almost a quarter of the Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in PBM‐affiliated Plans.”’

Yup. If you are convinced that such consolidation (monopolization) of our health care system is a good thing for efficiency and effectiveness, you should have a UnitedHealth poster on your wall. They are the largest “health” insurance company, control the largest share of Medicare “Advantage” clients, own the doctors’ network Optum, and, as above, control OptumRx. The last two are very big moneymakers for them, and account for much of their growth and profit. But the others are just as bad and would like to be as big.

On the other hand, perhaps you are not so convinced. In which case you should be calling your senators and representatives and letting them know that they should be supporting legislation to rein in the PBMs. And, while they’re at it, the insurance companies. And all the big profit-making corporations jacking up the cost of health care while limiting the care.

They have the dollars. But we have our voices, and our votes!

 

*DIR: Direct and Indirect Remuneration fees, which are charged to pharmacies by PBMs. A much more detailed description of them is in Potter’s piece, but in brief they are another method for the PBMs to scam more money, and to do so without any meaningful transparency.

Premiums are up, people are dying and insurance companies are making out like the bandits they are

In “Medical debt ruined her credit: 'It's like you're being punished for being sick'”, on NPR October 6, 2022, reporter Aneri Pattani covered the story of Penelope Wingard of Charlotte, NC, and others who had their credit ratings ruined as a result of the cost of medical care. This is bad, but is not as bad as the fact that they could no longer receive medical care. Wingard tells the reporter that "My hair hadn't even grown back from chemo, and I couldn't see my oncologist." After all, the doctors and hospitals want to be paid. In response to pressure from breast cancer advocacy groups, North Carolina had passed a law that temporarily granted Medicaid to breast cancer patients like Ms. Wingard. But then it ran out. As did her money. And her medical treatment. And her credit score plummeted.

What is the worst part of this story? For Ms. Wingard, it is both that she is broke and has no credit, and that she can no longer get treatment for her cancer. For many of the rest of us, it may be that something like that could happen to us or someone we love. For all of us, it is the remarkable fact that we find it unremarkable, that someone could go broke from their medical bills and lose their ability to buy necessary things on credit, and then not even be able to get their needed medical care. It is just the way it is, we think. Awful, and it happens all the time.

Except it is not just the “way it is”. Only here. It is not this way in any other wealthy, or most middle-income, countries. They all have universal health insurance that covers everyone for medically necessary care. Mostly they have had it for many decades. What is remarkable to most people in those countries is that we could possibly think that such a thing is unremarkable, if not exactly “OK”, is the “way it is”, and we are willing to tolerate it. This was the message from the PBS documentary by T. R. Reid “Sick Around the World”, aired in 2008, and covered by me, along with its 2009 follow-up “Sick Around America”, in ‘"Sick Around America": A little bit sickening’, August 5, 2009. In the earlier show, Reid interviews political and health leaders in 6 countries and asks, among other things, how many people in their country go bankrupt from medical debt. In that post, I quote the then-president of Switzerland, ‘a conservative who had originally opposed the Swiss program in the early 90s. “No one,” he boomed in his French-accented English, “why, it would be a national scandal!”‘ Then, and now as we approach the end of 2022, it should be one in the US, and yet we get stories like those of Ms. Wingard. These issues affect many Americans, and as usual are worst for those who are most disadvantaged.

It is “the way it is” in the US because we have chosen to make it so. Actually, it is our politicians who have chosen to make it so, blocking any effort to implement a universal health insurance program, from the 1920s to the time of Harry Truman in the late 1940s (when the AMA was the big opponent), to the 1960s when Medicare and Medicaid were passed and seen as the forerunners of such a program, to the current day. Why? Because of the powerful interests of those who are making money off our current health system, insurance companies and hospitals and other delivery systems (often vertically integrated) and pharmaceutical and device makers, who give lots of money to politicians and wield a lot of clout. They are not only making lots of money in an ostensible “free market” system, but in particular from government programs that they collect public money from. Don’t buy the false idea that “privatization” reduces costs; “administrative costs” are <3% in traditional “government” Medicare but upwards of 15-20% in Medicare Advantage. What privatization does is increase profit!

And, not content with making a lot from Medicare Advantage (a private, for-profit operation that our politicians should not allow to use the name “Medicare” – indeed, there is a bill in Congress now to prevent it – write your representative!), they further game the system by “upcoding”, paying folks whose job it is to make sure that every potential diagnosis and complication is recorded to maximize the amount of (your tax dollar) money that they collect from Medicare. Sometimes this is legal, if outrageous, but insurers are certainly not unwilling to push the legal envelope for more money (‘Cigna received millions of Medicare dollars based on invalid diagnoses, lawsuit claims’, ABC News October 17, 2022 -- and ‘millions’ is an underestimate). And it is assuredly not just Cigna that is guilty; while insurance premiums for Americans have increased 200% in the last decade, United HealthCare last year reported $24B ($24,000,000,000) in profit, more than ever before, an obscene amount, and a completely unabashed example of the fact that what is called the “healthcare” industry in the US is just an enormous profit center for the corporations that control it.

You want to know why we spend 2-3 times as much as any other wealthy country on “healthcare” and yet have so much poorer outcomes, shorter life expectancy, greater infant mortality, higher rates of “deaths of despair”? (‘Mirror, Mirror 2021: Reflecting Poorly: Health Care in the U.S. Compared to Other High-Income Countries’, Commonwealth Fund). This is the reason: the money is going to corporate profit, not your health care! If it were going to your healthcare, our outcomes would be better. But then they would not be making so much money, and donating so much of it to our (or maybe it is “their”) politicians.

Oh, maybe you thought that was the end. That insurance companies are raising our premiums, denying needed healthcare to sick people, making billions of dollars in profit, and corrupting our political system to ensure that it continues, was bad enough. And convincing you to shrug your shoulders and think “it’s sad, but that’s the way it is” when someone gets very sick, maybe dies, and goes bankrupt in the process. But, you know, that’s not enough for them. There is one more step: convincing you – and probably more important, the politicians – that it is not their fault that US health care costs so much. It is not the $24B in profit made by United. It is not the scamming of Medicare done by Cigna, or the entire Medicare Advantage and Direct Contracting Entities (DCE) programs that funnel public money into their pockets. No, no, it is YOU! As Wendell Potter, a “reformed’ health insurance executive, reports in ‘Corporate health insurance consultants blame high medical costs on our "bad habits" and "overuse" of system’ they say it is OUR fault for using too much care. Like, you know, going to the emergency room with chest pain, and sometimes it isn’t a heart attack (bad you!). Or, like Ms. Wingard, wanting to be treated for cancer. Or maybe even going to the emergency room when we are only sick, not dying, because we can’t get an appointment for the doctor.

It's not true, by the way. Europeans are hospitalized more frequently, have longer lengths of stay, and use the doctors at least as often. Their outcomes are better, especially when the health of the entire society is considered (we have a way of fudging this by only considering those people who were actually able to get care), and they pay a lot less. No, it is the profit and “administrative costs” of the health insurance companies and healthcare corporations.

Apparently buying into the idea of “incrementalism”, our politicians for the last 60 years have given us limited programs to help limited groups of people, at least somewhat. Seniors, disabled people, sometimes children, sometimes programs like the North Carolina one that paid for Ms. Wingard’s cancer treatment specifically because it was breast cancer (until, of course, it didn’t). This is NOT the way to go to get universal health care. The ACA (Obamacare) included the option for states to expand Medicaid to the less-than-desperately-poor and some did and folks in the other states are getting sick and dying.

No. We need a universal, comprehensive, EVERYBODY in, NOBODY out, health insurance system, government run or tightly regulated so there are not obscene profits. Like improved and expanded Medicare for All. Now.

 

Corporate mergers, retail clinics, and monopoly capital

Two huge mergers have recently been announced in the health insurance sector. First, Aetna announced its intention to acquire Humana for $35 billion, creating a behemoth. Not to be outdone, Anthem (the enormous group of formerly non-profit Blue Cross/Blue Shields that have gone for-profit) announced it will buy Cigna for $47 billion. Consolidation in the industry is moving fast, and soon there will be oligopoly. Robert Reich, in his July 5, 2015 article The Choice Ahead: A Private Health-Insurance Monopoly or a Single Payer discusses these mergers, observing that

Executives say these combinations will make their companies more efficient, allowing them to gain economies of scale and squeeze waste out of the system. This is what big companies always say when they acquire rivals.

Yes, indeed. They always say it, and while sometimes they achieve efficiencies-- this usually involves firing people -- it almost never benefits the consumer; prices almost always go up. Remember airline mergers? Bought a ticket lately? Despite the rhetoric of capitalism about competition, virtually all companies would prefer to be monopolies, control the industry, and set prices, guaranteeing huge profit. If they cannot, the next best thing is oligopoly, control by a few companies, with collusion so that they all make huge profits. Competition is their bugbear. Yes, we have federal regulators, but the result of their regulation has been those airline mergers. And telecommunications mergers. And financial services mergers. And banks too big to fail. So don’t count on them.

Health insurance companies are not the only mega-corporations profiting from “health care” by siphoning off money that could actually be spent improving health, or at least providing medical care. Obviously, there are drug companies (as I recently discussed in Chemotherapy, Quality of Life, and Corporate Profit on July 26, 2015), but also big pharmacy chains (like CVS, Rite Aid, and Walgreens) as well as other retailers that usually have a pharmacy (like Walmart, Kroger and Target) that have now branched out into providing health care, through what are known as “retail clinics”.

In the New England Journal of Medicine on July 15, 2015, John Iglehart writes about “The expansion of retail clinics—corporate titans vs. organized medicine”.[1] Here the case against the corporations is less clear, or at least the case in favor of organized medicine is. Iglehart points out that the opposition from organizations like the AMA, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have focused on the lack of continuity of care and “disruption of the patient-physician” relationship. Recently, opposition has softened (I guess folks know when they’ve lost) except from the AAP. It seems to me that these clinics provide a menu of services that primarily is focused on acute care for relatively minor infections and injuries, immunizations, and monitoring of chronic diseases like high blood pressure, and are pretty popular with the people who use them. They are conveniently located (for the people who use them), generally have little or no wait, and are staffed by professionals (usually nurse practitioners) who know what they are doing.

The problems with such retail clinics fall into two broad categories. First, when people use them inappropriately, not for acute or minor conditions, but as their usual source of care. For healthy younger people, this may be all they need. For older folks and others with chronic conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, chronic lung disease, heart disease, etc., they are not sufficient. The danger is when people only seek care when they have symptoms, such as (particularly) pain, whether to such a retail clinic, traditional physician’s office, or emergency room, and ignore prevention and management of their chronic conditions. I do not fault the providers in these settings; there is evidence that they urge people with such needs to follow up with their primary provider. But, once the acute symptoms are gone, they may not. Some of this, sadly, may be financial.

The other problem is more interesting, and gets back to the financial issue. Providers and the organizations representing them (“organized medicine”) has real concerns because such retail clinics “cherry pick”, or skim the easy cases that pay for (or more than pay for) themselves, leaving physicians with the care of patients with diseases that take more time and are reimbursed less per hour (or minute) of work; this destroys the business model of primary care practice. As long as we depend upon a fee-for-service, reimbursed-for-care-provided, private medical model, this puts a real burden on physician practices which, while looking bigger than the small retail clinics, are usually tiny compared to the corporations that own those clinics.

Another medical area in which there is a clearer case of fear of competition disguising itself as virtue is in the shrill hostility of US-based medical schools, represented by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) to off-shore (mainly Caribbean-based) medical schools, as described by Robert Goldberg in Discrimination against foreign medical schools is bad for your health in the online publication “The Hill”. The argument against such schools from the AAMC is in part that the students are “lower quality”, the ones rejected by US medical schools. The flaw here is that there are many highly-qualified students who do not get into US medical schools, demonstrated by the recent dramatic expansion of the number of US schools and the class size of existing schools. Are there Caribbean schools of poor quality? Yes. Is the academic preparation of students in Caribbean schools, on average, lower than those in US schools? Probably. Is this a reason to try to put them out of business, by both bad-mouthing and trying to limit the access that their students have to educational loans? I don’t think so.

Our US medical schools get talented students, and then put them through a process that ends up producing doctors underrepresented in the primary care specialties and overrepresented in urban – and especially suburban – areas. As I have often pointed out, we produce the wrong mix of doctors who practice in the wrong mix of places. If (and it is, of course, an if) graduates of off-shore medical schools are likely to fill the medical needs not being met by graduates of US medical schools, then the title of Goldberg’s piece is correct. The same might be said for retail clinics, if indeed they were mostly present in underserved communities, but, based on the business models of their owners, they are generally not.

So, then, we see a spectrum of corporate involvement in health care ranging from the off-shore, for-profit medical school, to the acute care clinics run by large retailers, to the consolidation into oligopoly of health insurance companies, to the large pharmaceutical manufacturers. We also see a response of tepid regulation of the latter two, and protectionism by organized medicine and organized medical schools to the first two. None of these are good for our health. What would be good for our health would be the rational use of health care dollars to provide health care, for everyone, of the right kind in the right setting.

Reich ends his article with

If we continue in the direction we’re headed we’ll soon have a health insurance system dominated by two or three mammoth for-profit corporations capable of squeezing employees and consumers for all they’re worth – and handing over the profits to their shareholders and executives. The alternative is a government-run single payer system – such as is in place in almost every other advanced economy – dedicated to lower premiums and better care.

Which do you prefer?

I feel like raising my hand and waving it in the air saying “I know, I know!”

---

[1] Iglehart JK, The expansion of retail clinics—corporate titans vs. organized medicine, NEJM 15 Jul 2015;373(4):301-303