Digital health’s acceleration: What the last few years tell us about RPM’s future

When discussions turn to digital health momentum, the framing often misses the mark. Some focus almost exclusively on the pandemic-era surge in telehealth adoption. Others concentrate narrowly on the latest regulatory update or speak broadly about the uncertain, long-term impact of artificial intelligence. What those narratives miss is the most important point: Remote care management, including remote patient monitoring (RPM), is expanding today precisely because it has already been tested, scrutinized and refined.

Over the past several years, RPM has moved through a deliberate and sometimes uncomfortable maturation process. From the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency through 2025, policy makers, payers and providers closely examined where remote monitoring delivered sustainable clinical and financial value and how it needed to continue evolving and expanding to even better fit real-world care delivery. That period of evaluation did not slow RPM’s progress. Rather, this period shaped it. The growth we are seeing as 2026 gets underway reflects validation earned through experience rather than enthusiasm driven by novelty alone.

Understanding that recent history is essential to appreciating why RPM’s current momentum is different from earlier waves of digital health adoption and why it is likely to persist.

A measured — and, to some, frustratingly slow — federal approach

Over the past several years, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) took a cautious but deliberate approach to RPM, one that often felt slow to providers and digital health stakeholders who were already seeing the clinical, financial and operational value of these programs. Issues such as rigid billing thresholds and operational uncertainty around supervision persisted longer than many in the industry expected. Rather than moving quickly to expand or revise coverage, CMS focused on observing how RPM was being used in practice. Utilization trends, patient adherence, documentation challenges and outcomes data all played a role in shaping policy.

That context matters when looking at the expanded RPM codes finalized in the 2026 Physician Fee Schedule. These changes did not signal a philosophical shift toward digital health. Instead, they addressed long-standing mismatches between billing requirements and clinical reality. Allowing reimbursement for shorter monitoring periods and briefer monthly interactions acknowledges that patients’ needs vary over time and by condition and removes incentives to structure care around rigid and clinically misaligned thresholds.

The same logic underlies CMS’s decision to permanently allow virtual direct supervision for most incident-to services. This change reflects the agency’s conclusion that distributed care teams, supported by real-time technology, can operate safely and effectively in many settings. It also provides long-term operational clarity for practices that had relied on temporary flexibilities during the public health emergency.

Taken together, these recent updates suggest CMS has moved past the question of whether RPM belongs in mainstream care delivery. The focus now is on how it should be structured, governed and refined.

That progression did not begin with the 2026 rule. In the 2024 Physician Fee Schedule, CMS expanded RPM reimbursement eligibility to federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics, extending access to remote monitoring for patient populations that have historically faced the greatest barriers to care. In 2025, CMS went a step further with the introduction of advanced primary care management, a program explicitly designed to support longitudinal, technology-enabled care for patients with chronic conditions.

At the same time, Congress has continued to signal bipartisan interest in remote care and care management programs. Various bills under consideration would eliminate the 20% beneficiary copay for chronic care management services, temporarily waive RPM copays while CMS studies utilization and outcomes, and/or expand access and reimbursement equity for RPM in rural and underserved communities. While these proposals vary in scope, they reflect a consistent federal policy direction across administrations: Remote monitoring and care management are increasingly viewed as tools for improving access, quality and affordability.

Care models assume technology-enabled care

That shift is also evident in newer federal initiatives. Programs such as the Rural Health Transformation initiative and the ACCESS (Advancing Chronic Care with Effective, Scalable Solutions) model are built around longitudinal, coordinated care that is not constrained by geography. While RPM is not always named explicitly, the underlying assumptions are clear: Ongoing data collection, proactive outreach and continuous patient engagement are central to these models.

This posture has remained consistent across administrations. While leadership priorities evolve, federal support for remote monitoring and care management has continued. Recent public discussion encouraging broader use of wearable technology reflects growing comfort with continuous health data as part of routine care. Consumer devices are not a substitute for clinical monitoring, but they reinforce a broader cultural shift that federal policy has increasingly accommodated.

Commercial payers largely moved in parallel

Federal policy did not evolve in isolation. Commercial payers have broadly expanded coverage for RPM and related digital health services. Many aligned closely with traditional Medicare, viewing remote monitoring as a tool for managing chronic disease, supporting value-based contracts and reducing avoidable utilization.

Employer-sponsored plans and state Medicaid programs followed a similar path. As RPM platforms matured and operational models improved, payers increasingly treated remote monitoring as an integrated component of chronic care strategies rather than an experimental benefit.

There has been one notable exception. UnitedHealthcare (UHC)’s announcement in October 2025 that it would significantly restrict RPM coverage beginning in 2026 stood out precisely because it diverged from prevailing trends and much of the available clinical data. Framed initially as a reassessment of medical necessity, the policy raised concerns across the provider and remote care community given its contrast with CMS guidance, peer payer policies and a growing body of evidence supporting longitudinal monitoring.

More recently, UHC delayed implementation of those changes, signaling that the policy remains under review, even as federal policy and much of the broader insurance market continue to move toward expanded support. Outliers aside, the broader market signal has been consistent.

Evidence and oversight advanced together

Another factor supporting RPM’s continued expansion has been the steady accumulation of research and real-world data. Studies and program evaluations have repeatedly shown that appropriately deployed RPM and remote care management can improve disease control, reduce hospitalizations and lower total cost of care over time, particularly for common chronic conditions.

At the same time, the industry has learned what does not work. Programs built around aggressive enrollment targets, minimal clinical oversight or vendor-driven billing arrangements have drawn scrutiny from regulators and payers alike. Increased audits and enforcement actions over the past several years reflect that reality.

This oversight has not slowed RPM’s growth. Instead, it has helped clarify expectations and establish a clearer road map for compliance and sustainable growth.

Looking ahead to the future of RPM

By the time CMS finalized its 2026 changes, RPM and remote care had already moved through multiple cycles of adoption, adjustment and validation. The expanded codes, operational flexibilities, and emerging programs and models are best understood as refinements informed by experience, designed to help more patients benefit from remote care and to motivate more providers to launch and grow RPM and related programs.

For physicians and practice leaders, the takeaway is straightforward. Remote care management, including RPM, is no longer something to evaluate as a temporary initiative or niche offering. It is part of the care delivery landscape, shaped by years of policy development, payer alignment and clinical evidence. The remaining question is not whether remote monitoring belongs in modern practice, but how to deploy it in a way that is clinically appropriate, operationally sustainable and compliant in an environment that increasingly expects it.

The momentum behind digital health did not emerge suddenly, and it is not tied to a single rule or administration. It reflects several years of learning what works, what does not and how policy can evolve to support both. That history helps explain why RPM continues to expand and why its role in care delivery is more likely to deepen than retreat in the years ahead.

Lucy Lamboley is vice president of operations for Prevounce Health, a health care software company that simplifies the provision of clinical preventive services, chronic care management and remote patient management.