COVID and Medicare payments spark remote patient monitoring boom

“The research evidence is not as robust as we would like to show that it is beneficial,” said Ateev Mehrotra, a Harvard Medical School researcher.

A January report by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, warned about “a lack of robust evidence on the optimal use of remote monitoring” and said some policy and medical experts “question whether we are effectively ‘rightsizing’ the use of these services, ensuring access for patients who need it most, and spending health care dollars in effective ways.”

Denton Shanks, a medical director at the American Academy of Family Physicians, said remote monitoring helps patients manage their diseases and helps physician practices be more efficient. He has used it for the past two years as a doctor at the University of Kansas Health System.

It has worked well, he said, though sometimes it can be challenging to persuade patients to sign up if they have to pay for it.

“For the vast majority of patients, once they are enrolled, they see a benefit, and we see a benefit as their vital signs come in the normal range,” Shanks said.

The size of the market is tantalizing.

About two-thirds of the more than 66 million Medicare beneficiaries have high blood pressure, the most common metric monitored remotely, according to physicians and the monitoring companies.

“The patient need is so enormous,” Cadence CEO Chris Altchek said. The company has about 40 nurses, medical assistants, and other providers monitoring patients in 17 states. He said patients enrolled in remote monitoring experience a 40% reduction in emergency room visits. Cadence says 82% of its patients use the devices at least once every two days.

Timothy Mott, a family physician in Foley, Alabama, said valuable appointment times in his office open up as patients who previously needed vital signs to be checked there turn to remote monitoring.

Cadence nurses regularly contact Mott’s patients and monitor their readings and make changes as needed.

“I was concerned early on whether they were going to make the right decisions with our patients,” Mott said. “But over time the dosage changes or changes in medication they are making are following the best guidelines on effectiveness.”

At the six-month mark, about 75% of patients have stayed with the monitoring, Mott said.

The advantages are apparent even to some providers who do not get paid by Medicare to offer the service. Frederick Health, a Maryland health system, provides remote monitoring to 364 high-risk patients and estimates the program saves the nonprofit system $10 million a year by reducing hospital admissions and ER visits. That estimate is based on comparisons of patients’ Medicare claims before they started the program and after, said Lisa Hogan, who runs the program.

The hospital pays for the program and does not bill Medicare, she said.