Search

ImportancePatients with advanced-stage cancer are receiving increasingly aggressive medical care near death, despite growing concerns that this reflects poor-quality care.ObjectiveTo assess the association of aggressive end-of-life care with bereaved family members' perceptions of the quality of end-of-life care and patients' goal attainment.Design, setting, and participantsInterviews with 1146 family members of Medicare patients with advanced-stage lung or colorectal cancer in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance study (a multiregional, prospective, observational study) who died by the end of 2011 (median, 144.5 days after death; interquartile range, 85.0-551.0 days).ExposuresClaims-based quality measures of aggressive end-of-life care (ie, intensive care unit [ICU] admission or repeated hospitalizations or emergency department visits during the last month of life; chemotherapy ≤2 weeks of death; no hospice or ≤3 days of hospice services; and deaths occurring in the hospital).Main outcomes and measuresFamily member-reported quality rating of "excellent" for end-of-life care. Secondary outcomes included patients' goal attainment (ie, end-of-life care congruent with patients' wishes and location of death occurred in preferred place).ResultsOf 1146 patients with cancer (median age, 76.0 years [interquartile range, 65.0-87.0 years]; 55.8% male), bereaved family members reported excellent end-of-life care for 51.3%. Family members reported excellent end-of-life care more often for patients who received hospice care for longer than 3 days (58.8% [352/599]) than those who did not receive hospice care or received 3 or fewer days (43.1% [236/547]) (adjusted difference, 16.5 percentage points [95% CI, 10.7 to 22.4 percentage points]). In contrast, family members of patients admitted to an ICU within 30 days of death reported excellent end-of-life care less often (45.0% [68/151]) than those who were not admitted to an ICU within 30 days of death (52.3% [520/995]) (adjusted difference, -9.4 percentage points [95% CI, -18.2 to -0.6 percentage points]). Similarly, family members of patients who died in the hospital reported excellent end-of-life care less often (42.2% [194/460]) than those who did not die in the hospital (57.4% [394/686]) (adjusted difference, -17.0 percentage points [95% CI, -22.9 to -11.1 percentage points]). Family members of patients who did not receive hospice care or received 3 or fewer days were less likely to report that patients died in their preferred location (40.0% [152/380]) than those who received hospice care for longer than 3 days (72.8% [287/394]) (adjusted difference, -34.4 percentage points [95% CI, -41.7 to -27.0 percentage points]).Conclusions and relevanceAmong family members of older patients with fee-for service Medicare who died of lung or colorectal cancer, earlier hospice enrollment, avoidance of ICU admissions within 30 days of death, and death occurring outside the hospital were associated with perceptions of better end-of-life care. These findings are supportive of advance care planning consistent with the preferences of patients.

ImportanceHeat exposure is known to have a complex set of physiological effects on multiple organ systems, but current understanding of the health effects is mostly based on studies investigating a small number of prespecified health outcomes such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.ObjectivesTo identify possible causes of hospital admissions during extreme heat events and to estimate their risks using historical data.Design, setting, and populationMatched analysis of time series data describing daily hospital admissions of Medicare enrollees (23.7 million fee-for-service beneficiaries [aged ≥65 years] per year; 85% of all Medicare enrollees) for the period 1999 to 2010 in 1943 counties in the United States with at least 5 summers of near-complete (>95%) daily temperature data.ExposuresHeat wave periods, defined as 2 or more consecutive days with temperatures exceeding the 99th percentile of county-specific daily temperatures, matched to non-heat wave periods by county and week.Main outcomes and measuresDaily cause-specific hospitalization rates by principal discharge diagnosis codes, grouped into 283 disease categories using a validated approach.ResultsRisks of hospitalization for fluid and electrolyte disorders, renal failure, urinary tract infection, septicemia, and heat stroke were statistically significantly higher on heat wave days relative to matched non-heat wave days, but risk of hospitalization for congestive heart failure was lower (P

ImportanceMore patients with cancer use hospice currently than ever before, but there are indications that care intensity outside of hospice is increasing, and length of hospice stay decreasing. Uncertainties regarding how hospice affects health care utilization and costs have hampered efforts to promote it.ObjectiveTo compare utilization and costs of health care for patients with poor-prognosis cancers enrolled in hospice vs similar patients without hospice care.Design, setting, and participantsMatched cohort study of patients in hospice and nonhospice care using a nationally representative 20% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who died in 2011. Patients with poor-prognosis cancers (eg, brain, pancreatic, metastatic malignancies) enrolled in hospice before death were matched to similar patients who died without hospice care.ExposuresPeriod between hospice enrollment and death for hospice beneficiaries, and the equivalent period of nonhospice care before death for matched nonhospice patients.Main outcomes and measuresHealth care utilization including hospitalizations and procedures, place of death, cost trajectories before and after hospice start, and cumulative costs, all during the last year of life.ResultsAmong 86,851 patients with poor-prognosis cancers, median time from first poor-prognosis diagnosis to death was 13 months (interquartile range [IQR], 3-34), and 51,924 patients (60%) entered hospice before death. Matching yielded a cohort balanced on age, sex, region, time from poor-prognosis diagnosis to death, and baseline care utilization, with 18,165 patients in the hospice group and 18,165 in the nonhospice group. After matching, 11% of nonhospice and 1% of hospice beneficiaries who had cancer-directed therapy after exposure were excluded. Median hospice duration was 11 days. After exposure, nonhospice beneficiaries had significantly more hospitalizations (65% [95% CI, 64%-66%], vs hospice with 42% [95% CI, 42%-43%]; risk ratio, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.5-1.6]), intensive care (36% [95% CI, 35%-37%], vs hospice with 15% [95% CI, 14%-15%]; risk ratio, 2.4 [95% CI, 2.3-2.5]), and invasive procedures (51% [95% CI, 50%-52%], vs hospice with 27% [95% CI, 26%-27%]; risk ratio, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.9-2.0]), largely for acute conditions not directly related to cancer; and 74% (95% CI, 74%-75%) of nonhospice beneficiaries died in hospitals and nursing facilities compared with 14% (95% CI, 14%-15%) of hospice beneficiaries. Costs for hospice and nonhospice beneficiaries were not significantly different at baseline, but diverged after hospice start. Total costs over the last year of life were $71,517 (95% CI, $70,543-72,490) for nonhospice and $62,819 (95% CI, $62,082-63,557) for hospice, a statistically significant difference of $8697 (95% CI, $7560-$9835).Conclusions and relevanceIn this sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with poor-prognosis cancer, those receiving hospice care vs not (control), had significantly lower rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and invasive procedures at the end of life, along with significantly lower total costs during the last year of life.

ImportanceClinical trials of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have included a minority of patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 30% and 35%. Because a large number of ICDs in the United States are implanted in such patients, it is important to study survival associated with this therapy.ObjectiveTo characterize patients with LVEF between 30% and 35% and compare the survival of those with and without ICDs.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD registry (January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2007) with an LVEF between 30% and 35% who received an ICD during a heart failure hospitalization and similar patients in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) database (January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2009) with no ICD. The analysis was repeated in patients with an LVEF less than 30%. There were 3120 patients with an LVEF between 30% and 35% (816 in matched cohorts) and 4578 with an LVEF less than 30% (2176 in matched cohorts). Propensity score matching and Cox models were applied.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was all-cause mortality; data were obtained from Medicare claims through December 31, 2011.ResultsThere were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics of the matched groups (n = 408 for both groups). Among patients with an LVEF between 30% and 35%, there were 248 deaths in the ICD Registry group, within a median follow-up of 4.4 years (interquartile range, 2.7-4.9) and 249 deaths in the GWTG HF group, within a median follow-up of 2.9 years (interquartile range, 2.1-4.4). The risk of all-cause mortality in patients with an LVEF between 30% and 35% and an ICD was significantly lower than that in matched patients without an ICD (3-year mortality rates: 51.4% vs 55.0%; hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.69-0.99]; P = .04). Presence of an ICD also was associated with better survival in patients with an LVEF less than 30% (3-year mortality rates: 45.0% vs 57.6%; 634 and 660 total deaths; hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.65-0.81]; P

Importance: Diltiazem, a commonly prescribed ventricular rate-control medication for patients with atrial fibrillation, inhibits apixaban and rivaroxaban elimination, possibly causing overanticoagulation., Objective: To compare serious bleeding risk for new users of apixaban or rivaroxaban with atrial fibrillation treated with diltiazem or metoprolol., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with atrial fibrillation who initiated apixaban or rivaroxaban use and also began treatment with diltiazem or metoprolol between January 1, 2012, and November 29, 2020. Patients were followed up to 365 days through November 30, 2020. Data were analyzed from August 2023 to February 2024., Exposures: Diltiazem and metoprolol., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of bleeding-related hospitalization and death with recent evidence of bleeding. Secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, major ischemic or hemorrhagic events (ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, intracranial or fatal extracranial bleeding, or death with recent evidence of bleeding), and death without recent evidence of bleeding. Hazard ratios (HRs) and rate differences (RDs) were adjusted for covariate differences with overlap weighting., Results: The study included 204 155 US Medicare beneficiaries, of whom 53 275 received diltiazem and 150 880 received metoprolol. Study patients (mean [SD] age, 76.9 [7.0] years; 52.7% female) had 90 927 person-years (PY) of follow-up (median, 120 [IQR, 59-281] days). Patients receiving diltiazem treatment had increased risk for the primary outcome (RD, 10.6 [95% CI, 7.0-14.2] per 1000 PY; HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.13-1.29]) and its components of bleeding-related hospitalization (RD, 8.2 [95% CI, 5.1-11.4] per 1000 PY; HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.13-1.31]) and death with recent evidence of bleeding (RD, 2.4 [95% CI, 0.6-4.2] per 1000 PY; HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.05-1.34]) compared with patients receiving metoprolol. Risk for the primary outcome with initial diltiazem doses exceeding 120 mg/d (RD, 15.1 [95% CI, 10.2-20.1] per 1000 PY; HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.19-1.39]) was greater than that for lower doses (RD, 6.7 [95% CI, 2.0-11.4] per 1000 PY; HR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.04-1.24]). For doses exceeding 120 mg/d, the risk of major ischemic or hemorrhagic events was increased (HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.02-1.27]). Neither dose group had significant changes in the risk for ischemic stroke or systemic embolism or death without recent evidence of bleeding. When patients receiving high- and low-dose diltiazem treatment were directly compared, the HR for the primary outcome was 1.14 (95% CI, 1.02-1.26)., Conclusions and Relevance: In Medicare patients with atrial fibrillation receiving apixaban or rivaroxaban, diltiazem was associated with greater risk of serious bleeding than metoprolol, particularly for diltiazem doses exceeding 120 mg/d.

ContextClinicians can find it difficult to know which drugs are covered for their Medicare patients because formularies vary widely among Medicare Part D plans and many states have 50 or more such plans.ObjectiveTo determine whether Part D formularies in California (the state with the most Medicare beneficiaries) and Hawaii have at least 1 drug within each of 8 treatment classes for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and depression that can be identified for clinicians as "widely covered" by the vast majority of Part D plans.Design and settingUse of the medicare.gov Web site (March 1-April 15, 2006) to examine 72 California and 43 Hawaii Part D formularies' coverage of 8 treatment classes (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, loop diuretics, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, statins, and thiazide diuretics), with evaluation of how often drugs were widely covered (defined as inclusion in >or=90% of formularies at co-payments of Main outcome measureIdentification of treatment classes with at least 1 widely covered drug.ResultsFor California, coverage for the 75 drugs examined ranged from 7% to 100%. Despite this variation, 7 of 8 classes (excluding angiotensin II receptor blockers) had at least 1 widely covered drug. Of the 34 widely covered drugs (45%), all but 2 were generic. Restricting widely covered to include 95% or more of formularies at co-payments of $15 or less still resulted in 7 of 8 classes with at least 1 widely covered drug. Overall, 73% of generic drugs and 6% of brand-name drugs were widely covered. Findings were similar for Hawaii.ConclusionsFormularies varied substantially; however, all but 1 treatment class examined had 1 or more widely covered drugs at low co-payments. Knowing which drugs are widely covered would assist clinicians in prescribing, since not all generic drugs were widely covered. Clinicians should know that few brand-name drugs are widely covered and check coverage before prescribing.

Importance: In January 2023, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Food and Drug Administration noted a safety concern for ischemic stroke among adults aged 65 years or older who received the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2; WT/OMI BA.4/BA.5 COVID-19 bivalent vaccine., Objective: To evaluate stroke risk after administration of (1) either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine, (2) either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent plus a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine on the same day (concomitant administration), and (3) a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine., Design, Setting, and Participants: Self-controlled case series including 11 001 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who experienced stroke after receiving either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine (among 5 397 278 vaccinated individuals). The study period was August 31, 2022, through February 4, 2023., Exposures: Receipt of (1) either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine (primary) or (2) a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (secondary)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Stroke risk (nonhemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack, combined outcome of nonhemorrhagic stroke or transient ischemic attack, or hemorrhagic stroke) during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day risk window after vaccination vs the 43- to 90-day control window., Results: There were 5 397 278 Medicare beneficiaries who received either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine (median age, 74 years [IQR, 70-80 years]; 56% were women). Among the 11 001 beneficiaries who experienced stroke after receiving either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine, there were no statistically significant associations between either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine and the outcomes of nonhemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack, nonhemorrhagic stroke or transient ischemic attack, or hemorrhagic stroke during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day risk window vs the 43- to 90-day control window (incidence rate ratio [IRR] range, 0.72-1.12). Among the 4596 beneficiaries who experienced stroke after concomitant administration of either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine plus a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine, there was a statistically significant association between vaccination and nonhemorrhagic stroke during the 22- to 42-day risk window for the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2; WT/OMI BA.4/BA.5 COVID-19 bivalent vaccine (IRR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.01-1.42]; risk difference/100 000 doses, 3.13 [95% CI, 0.05-6.22]) and a statistically significant association between vaccination and transient ischemic attack during the 1- to 21-day risk window for the Moderna mRNA-1273.222 COVID-19 bivalent vaccine (IRR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.06-1.74]; risk difference/100 000 doses, 3.33 [95% CI, 0.46-6.20]). Among the 21 345 beneficiaries who experienced stroke after administration of a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine, there was a statistically significant association between vaccination and nonhemorrhagic stroke during the 22- to 42-day risk window (IRR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.02-1.17]; risk difference/100 000 doses, 1.65 [95% CI, 0.43-2.87])., Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who experienced stroke after receiving either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine, there was no evidence of a significantly elevated risk for stroke during the days immediately after vaccination.

Importance: Dialysis-dependent patients experience high rates of morbidity from fractures, yet little evidence is available on optimal treatment strategies. Chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder is nearly universal in dialysis-dependent patients, complicating diagnosis and treatment of skeletal fragility., Objective: To examine the incidence and comparative risk of severe hypocalcemia with denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates among dialysis-dependent patients treated for osteoporosis., Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of female dialysis-dependent Medicare patients aged 65 years or older who initiated treatment with denosumab or oral bisphosphonates from 2013 to 2020. Clinical performance measures including monthly serum calcium were obtained through linkage to the Consolidated Renal Operations in a Web-Enabled Network database., Exposures: Denosumab, 60 mg, or oral bisphosphonates., Main Outcomes and Measures: Severe hypocalcemia was defined as total albumin-corrected serum calcium below 7.5 mg/dL (1.88 mmol/L) or a primary hospital or emergency department hypocalcemia diagnosis (emergent care). Very severe hypocalcemia (serum calcium below 6.5 mg/dL [1.63 mmol/L] or emergent care) was also assessed. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted cumulative incidence, weighted risk differences, and weighted risk ratios were calculated during the first 12 treatment weeks., Results: In the unweighted cohorts, 607 of 1523 denosumab-treated patients and 23 of 1281 oral bisphosphonate-treated patients developed severe hypocalcemia. The 12-week weighted cumulative incidence of severe hypocalcemia was 41.1% with denosumab vs 2.0% with oral bisphosphonates (weighted risk difference, 39.1% [95% CI, 36.3%-41.9%]; weighted risk ratio, 20.7 [95% CI, 13.2-41.2]). The 12-week weighted cumulative incidence of very severe hypocalcemia was also increased with denosumab (10.9%) vs oral bisphosphonates (0.4%) (weighted risk difference, 10.5% [95% CI, 8.8%-12.0%]; weighted risk ratio, 26.4 [95% CI, 9.7-449.5])., Conclusions and Relevance: Denosumab was associated with a markedly higher incidence of severe and very severe hypocalcemia in female dialysis-dependent patients aged 65 years or older compared with oral bisphosphonates. Given the complexity of diagnosing the underlying bone pathophysiology in dialysis-dependent patients, the high risk posed by denosumab in this population, and the complex strategies required to monitor and treat severe hypocalcemia, denosumab should be administered after careful patient selection and with plans for frequent monitoring.

Importance: Implemented in 18 regions, Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) was the largest US primary care delivery model ever tested. Understanding its association with health outcomes is critical in designing future transformation models., Objective: To test whether CPC+ was associated with lower health care spending and utilization and improved quality of care., Design, Setting, and Participants: Difference-in-differences regression models compared changes in outcomes between the year before CPC+ and 5 intervention years for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to CPC+ and comparison practices. Participants included 1373 track 1 (1 549 585 beneficiaries) and 1515 track 2 (5 347 499 beneficiaries) primary care practices that applied to start CPC+ in 2017 and met minimum care delivery and other eligibility requirements. Comparison groups included 5243 track 1 (5 347 499 beneficiaries) and 3783 track 2 (4 507 499 beneficiaries) practices, matched, and weighted to have similar beneficiary-, practice-, and market-level characteristics as CPC+ practices., Interventions: Two-track design involving enhanced (higher for track 2) and alternative payments (track 2 only), care delivery requirements (greater for track 2), data feedback, learning, and health information technology support., Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary outcome was annualized Medicare Part A and B expenditures per beneficiary per month (PBPM). Secondary outcomes included expenditure categories, utilization (eg, hospitalizations), and claims-based quality-of-care process and outcome measures (eg, recommended tests for patients with diabetes and unplanned readmissions)., Results: Among the CPC+ patients, 5% were Black, 3% were Hispanic, 87% were White, and 5% were of other races (including Asian/Other Pacific Islander and American Indian); 85% of CPC+ patients were older than 65 years and 58% were female. CPC+ was associated with no discernible changes in the total expenditures (track 1: $1.1 PBPM [90% CI, -$4.3 to $6.6], P = .74; track 2: $1.3 [90% CI, -$5 to $7.7], P = .73), and with increases in expenditures including enhanced payments (track 1: $13 [90% CI, $7 to $18], P < .001; track 2: $24 [90% CI, $18 to $31], P < .001). Among secondary outcomes, CPC+ was associated with decreases in emergency department visits starting in year 1, and in acute hospitalizations and acute inpatient expenditures in later years. Associations were more favorable for practices also participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program and independent practices. CPC+ was not associated with meaningful changes in claims-based quality-of-care measures., Conclusions and Relevance: Although the timing of the associations of CPC+ with reduced utilization and acute inpatient expenditures was consistent with the theory of change and early focus on episodic care management of CPC+, CPC+ was not associated with a reduction in total expenditures over 5 years. Positive interaction between CPC+ and the Shared Savings Program suggests transformation models might be more successful when provider cost-reduction incentives are aligned across specialties. Further adaptations and testing of primary care transformation models, as well as consideration of the larger context in which they operate, are needed.

ObjectiveTo compare rates of cataract extraction in 2 prepaid health settings and in traditional fee-for-service (FFS) settings.DesignA cross-sectional analysis using 1993 health maintenance organization (HMO) Medicare claims and encounter files, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) 5% Medicare Part B provider/supplier file, and the HCFA October 1992 100% Medicare population file.SettingSouthern California Medicare FFS settings and the staff-model and independent practice association (IPA) plans of a large California HMO.Patients1993 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older. The study included 43387 staff-model HMO enrollees, 19050 IPA enrollees, and 47 150 FFS beneficiaries (a 5% sample of all Southern California FFS beneficiaries).Main outcome measureAge and risk-factor adjusted rates of cataract extraction per 1000 beneficiary-years.ResultsAfter controlling for age, sex, and diabetes mellitus status, FFS beneficiaries were twice as likely to undergo cataract extraction as were prepaid beneficiaries (P

Importance: US primary care physicians (PCPs) have lower mean incomes than specialists, likely contributing to workforce shortages. In 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services increased payment for evaluation and management (E/M) services and relaxed documentation requirements. These changes may have reduced the gap between primary care and specialist payment., Objectives: To simulate the effect of the E/M payment policy change on total Medicare physician payments while holding volume constant and to compare these simulated changes with observed changes in total Medicare payments and E/M coding intensity, before (July-December 2020) and after (July-December 2021) the E/M payment policy change., Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective observational study of US office-based physicians who were in specialties with 5000 or more physicians billing Medicare and who had 50 or more fee-for-service Medicare visits before and after the E/M payment policy change., Exposures: E/M payment policy changes., Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included physician-level simulated volume-constant payment change, total observed Medicare payment change, and share of high-intensity (ie, level 4 or 5) E/M visits before and after the E/M payment policy change. For each specialty, the median change in each outcome was reported. The payment gap between primary care and specialty physicians was calculated as the difference between total Medicare payments to the median primary care and median specialty physician., Results: The study population included 180 624 physicians. Repricing 2020 services yielded a simulated volume-constant payment change ranging from a 3.3% (-$4557.0) decrease for the median radiologist to an 11.0% ($3683.1) increase for the median family practice physician. After the E/M payment change, the median high-intensity share of E/M visits increased for physicians of nearly all specialties, ranging from a -4.4 percentage point increase (dermatology) to a 17.8 percentage point increase (psychiatry). The median change in total Medicare payments by specialty ranged from -4.2% (-$1782.9) for general surgery to 12.1% ($3746.9) for family practice. From July-December 2020 to July-December 2021, the payment gap between the median primary care physician and the median specialist shrank by $825.1, from $40 259.8 to $39 434.7 (primary care, $41 193.3 in July-December 2020 and $45 962.4 in July-December 2021; specialist, $81 453.1 in July-December 2020 and $85 397.1 in July-December 2021)-a relative decrease of 2.0%., Conclusions and Relevance: Among US office-based physicians receiving Medicare payments in 2020 and 2021, E/M payment policy changes were associated with changes in Medicare payment by specialty, although the payment gap between primary care physicians and specialists decreased only modestly. The findings may have been influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, and further research in subsequent years is needed.