Healthcare's Digital Revolution: Why Cutting Remote Monitoring is a Step Backwards

UnitedHealthcare's plan to limit remote patient monitoring (RPM) reimbursement starting in 2026 is a big mistake. They will only cover heart failure and hypertensive disorders during pregnancy. This decision ignores the growing evidence that RPM helps manage common conditions like hypertension and diabetes. It also goes against the trend of modernizing chronic care. This policy could widen health gaps, make value-based care harder, and increase unnecessary costs. Let's look at the facts. UnitedHealthcare says RPM is not necessary for many conditions because there's not enough proof it works. But the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) disagrees. CMS recently added new codes to make RPM more flexible and aligned with real-world use. This shows that the federal government supports RPM, not limits it. The evidence for RPM is strong and growing. For heart failure, which UnitedHealthcare will still cover, studies show RPM reduces hospitalizations and can even lower mortality rates. Different types of RPM, like cellular-connected blood pressure monitors, contribute to these benefits. The key is daily data capture, blood pressure monitoring, and responsive workflows. Hypertension is where UnitedHealthcare's decision makes the least sense. Research shows that connected blood pressure monitoring, combined with timely adjustments and coaching, improves control and reduces emergency visits. CMS has acknowledged these benefits by making RPM more adaptable to different situations. This is exactly where home blood pressure data can make a big difference. Diabetes is another condition that UnitedHealthcare is misjudging. While not all RPM programs show the same results, the overall evidence, especially when combined with medication management and education, shows improved blood sugar control and fewer emergency visits. A study by Smart Meter found that cellular-connected glucose monitoring devices reduced the average A1c of 70% of participants by 2. 8 points over 12 weeks. Critics often point to older studies that didn't show significant benefits. However, these studies teach us how to improve RPM. For example, the BEAT-HF study from over a decade ago showed that RPM improved quality of life and highlighted the need for clearer action protocols. Modern RPM programs have incorporated these lessons, leading to better outcomes. In a 2025 study published in the American Journal of Managed Care, an RPM program for Medicare patients with care coaching reduced high blood pressure readings and stage 2 hypertension. After a year, the percentage of patients with stage 2 hypertension dropped from 100% to 25%. This shows the potential of RPM to make a real difference in patients' lives. Even for conditions where the evidence is mixed, like COPD, reviews suggest that RPM is safe and acceptable. When paired with regular clinician feedback, it can reduce hospital admissions. UnitedHealthcare's decision to exclude these conditions ignores the nuances and could lead to avoidable hospitalizations. From an economic perspective, RPM is increasingly cost-effective, especially for cardiovascular diseases. A 2023 systematic review found that RPM can be cost-effective in the long run. The key is to pay for the right RPM programs tied to outcomes, not to cut coverage. UnitedHealthcare's decision to limit RPM reimbursement is a step backward. It goes against the progressive federal policy and could disrupt care continuity for millions of patients. Instead of cutting coverage, payers should focus on building outcome-linked RPM coverage. This means tying reimbursement to program design features linked to outcomes, using episode-based payments, and requiring transparent reporting. RPM is not a magic solution, but when done well, it saves lives and money. Rolling back coverage for the conditions that burden our healthcare system the most is the wrong answer. UnitedHealthcare should reconsider and join clinicians, patients, and CMS in moving chronic care forward, not backward.