KLAS Contact
Contact KLAS
Contact KLAS
2024 BEST IN KLAS
Preferences
Related Series
2023
2019
2018
Related Segments
Remote Patient Monitoring 2022
Growing Energy and Early Outcomes
Author
Schafer Jackson
Author
Dan Czech
Author
Ciera Walker
Remote patient monitoring (RPM) solutions have the potential to give healthcare organizations the data they need to offer interventions, improve outcomes, and reduce the cost of care (e.g., by limiting ED visits and hospitalizations). Energy is high, especially among large organizations, and RPM investment is growing. Today, the technology market is highly fragmented, and the future depends on the ongoing reimbursement landscape. This report details healthcare organizations’ plans for RPM, the vendors they are using or considering, and what organizations need from their vendors to maximize the technology’s clinical impact.
Market Energy Spread across Many Vendors; HRS & Vivify Health Stand Out with High Use/Consideration
The still-maturing RPM market is highly fragmented, with many respondents using or considering multiple solutions. Broad RPM solutions are the most often considered, as organizations look to centralize their virtual care programs. Health Recovery Solutions (HRS) and Vivify Health stand out with broad offerings and high rates of use and consideration. HRS, named Best in KLAS in 2022, is the most often used or considered, and for a variety of conditions. All interviewed customers are satisfied, praising HRS’ strong partnerships and responsive support. Vivify Health is also often used and considered for various conditions. Current customers describe an inconsistent experience, and satisfaction has steadily declined over the last three years. Unengaged, unknowledgeable support personnel and poor EMR integration are common pain points. Two of the seven respondents currently using Vivify plan to replace the vendor—one cited poor customer service; the other is consolidating solutions and focusing more on continuous monitoring for complex conditions.
Financial Support Often Comes from Multiple Sources—Mainly Insurance/CPT Codes & Improved Outcomes
Many healthcare organizations use multiple avenues to financially justify or support their RPM programs. The most common method is to bill Medicare and other payers via CPT codes. Respondents say new CPT codes for RPM have been beneficial, and they hope additional reimbursement will come as they demonstrate that RPM can reduce hospitalizations. Many organizations also rely on value-based care arrangements that improve clinical outcomes and decrease the cost of care. These organizations acknowledge that RPM isn’t their profit center; however, they often have seen or expect to see cost savings as a result of early interventions and ED diversions. Grants, donations, and outside funding are also common strategies for kickstarting a program. These options are commonly cited by those planning for an RPM program, and while they can help prove use cases, they are not sustainable long term. Among organizations with a live RPM program, half of those who bill insurance also rely on improved outcomes/reduced costs of care, and almost one-third also leverage grants, especially for start-up costs (e.g., devices).
RPM Proven to Reduce Readmissions & Improve Clinical Outcomes
A majority of organizations with a live RPM program (regardless of reimbursement approach) report seeing reduced cost of care or healthcare utilization—specifically through fewer hospital admissions and ED visits (these results also help with bed availability when patient volumes are high). Other common outcomes include earlier interventions and improved clinical outcomes because of increased visibility into patients’ health status. Almost all organizations with a live RPM program whose financial reliability relies at least partially on improved outcomes have seen reduced admissions/utilization, improved patient outcomes, or both. Some also report increased patient engagement—and patient compliance is a crucial factor in RPM success. Few organizations are earning profits from RPM; rather, they tend to focus on a more long-term reduction in cost of care.
Improved EMR Integration and Patient Ease of Use Needed to Increase Clinical Impact
Organizations cite a range of features or improvements needed to increase RPM’s clinical impact. EMR integration was mentioned by many (live with RPM or not) as vital to streamlining clinician workflows and capturing clinical and billing data. Patient ease of use is another important requirement, since improving outcomes and achieving an ROI depends heavily on patient comprehension, adherence, and participation. Organizations also want reporting that is more flexible or includes better summaries to help them prove an ROI, track patient outcomes, prioritize alerts, or compare patient populations.
Large Organizations Approaching Plans for AHCaH Carefully
The majority of acute care respondents are at least considering CMS’ Acute Hospital Care at Home (AHCaH) initiative; these tend to be large organizations with the resources and infrastructure to support the accompanying complexities and regulations. Organizations expect to see clinical benefits, like better outcomes for patients who recover at home, while also freeing up inpatient beds. However, most need time to assess the initiative’s viability and the available software solutions, along with finding resources to plan and build a program.
About This Report
KLAS Perception Data
This report is a perception study. It is designed to help readers understand healthcare organizations’ current remote patient monitoring (RPM) strategies and technology. It also examines which vendors these organizations are currently using and/or considering for RPM solutions. It is important to note that this report is not focused on the performance of these vendors but rather on ascertaining which are top of mind for healthcare organizations. Other vendors not discussed in this report may offer similar capabilities, but healthcare organizations did not bring them up in conversations with KLAS.
For this study, KLAS interviewed 74 unique healthcare organizations. Interviewed organizations were asked to share (1) the status and maturity of their RPM program or plans for an RPM program; (2) what vendors they are using, considering, or replacing, and for what conditions; (3) the most important features, programs, or services they want to see from RPM vendors; (4) any realized outcomes from a live program; (5) current or planned methods for financially supporting the RPM program; and (6) any plans for pursuing an Acute Hospital Care at Home (AHCaH) program. To support a truly representative picture of the healthcare market and avoid biasing the sample with a disproportionate number of organizations live with an RPM strategy, KLAS did not base outreach efforts on the client lists shared by RPM vendors.
KLAS Performance Data
For vendors where KLAS has sufficient performance data, this report also shares a high-level view of vendor performance—specifically, their overall performance score and some details of the customer experience.
Interviews were conducted over the last 12 months using KLAS’ standard quantitative evaluation for healthcare software, which is composed of 16 numeric ratings questions and 4 yes/no questions, all weighted equally. Combined, the ratings for these questions make up the overall performance score, which is measured on a 100-point scale. The questions are organized into six customer experience pillars—culture, loyalty, operations, product, relationship, and value.
Sample Sizes
Unless otherwise noted, sample sizes displayed throughout this report (e.g., n=16) represent the total number of unique customer organizations interviewed for a given vendor or solution. However, it should be noted that to allow for the representation of differing perspectives within any one customer organization, samples may include surveys from different individuals at the same organization.
When the number of unique organization responses for a particular question related to vendor performance is less than 15, the score for that question is marked with an asterisk (*) or otherwise designated as “limited data.” If the sample size is less than 6, no score is shown. Note that when a vendor has a low number of reporting sites, the possibility exists for KLAS scores to change significantly as new surveys are collected.
Writer
Amanda Wind Smith
Designer
Madison Moniz
Project Manager
Andrew Wright
This material is copyrighted. Any organization gaining unauthorized access to this report will be liable to compensate KLAS for the full retail price. Please see the KLAS DATA USE POLICY for information regarding use of this report. © 2024 KLAS Research, LLC. All Rights Reserved. NOTE: Performance scores may change significantly when including newly interviewed provider organizations, especially when added to a smaller sample size like in emerging markets with a small number of live clients. The findings presented are not meant to be conclusive data for an entire client base.