Remote monitoring boosts Medicare revenue by 20% for primary care practices, study finds

Remote physiologic monitoring (RPM) may be doing more than helping patients track blood pressure and glucose levels between visits. New research from Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health finds that practices adopting RPM saw a 20% boost in Medicare revenue over two years, while also increasing total patient visits and maintaining access for non-RPM patients.

The findings, which were published in Health Affairs on Monday, Nov. 3, suggest that remote monitoring — often marketed as a means to improve outcomes and supplement reimbursement — is beginning to reshape how primary care practices allocate time, staff and resources.

More revenue, more visits — without crowding out other patients

Led by Mitchell Tang, Ph.D., assistant professor of health policy and management at Columbia, the study analyzed national Medicare data from 754 primary care practices that began billing for RPM between 2019 and 2021. Compared with similar practices that did not adopt RPM, those using the technology experienced a 20% increase in Medicare revenue through 2023.

Most of that growth came directly from RPM billing, but roughly one-quarter stemmed from additional care management and outpatient visits. Practices also recorded a 2.7% increase in billing providers, though Tang noted that most gains came from higher activity per clinician rather than additional hiring.

“RPM services are often touted as a way for practices to both improve patient care and increase revenue, but it’s not a given that this will happen,” Tang said.

Higher-risk more diverse patient panels

Researchers found that practices adopting RPM tended to serve a broader mix of patients after implementation, including more individuals with higher disease burdens, as well as more non-White and dually eligible Medicare-Medicaid patients.

The study indicates that RPM adoption did not shift resources away from traditional in-person visits.

“There was concern that the added time and resources to provide RPM to some patients would come at a cost — [that] other patients in the practice might struggle to get care,” Tang said. In actuality, practices saw more patients overall.

Policy and cost

While the study does offer what co-author Ariel D. Stern, Ph.D., of the University of Potsdam’s Hasso Plattner Institute, called “cautious optimism” for how digital tools can strengthen primary care, the authors also warn that unchecked expansion could drive up federal costs.

“Thoughtful reimbursement policies, such as evidence-based limits on monitoring duration and patient eligibility, are key to incentivize high value RPM services and ensure sustainability of RPM moving forward,” Stern said.

Supported by the Commonwealth Fund, the analysis underscores a growing shift in how technology-driven services intersect with the business of primary care, providing a rare, data-backed look at how new reimbursement models translate to practice-level outcomes.