The Margin Transfer Nobody Models

Many health systems pay $40–$80 per patient per month (PMPM) for full-service remote patient monitoring while Medicare's 2025 national averages reimburse approximately $91–$129 monthly depending on engagement time. When clinical teams can deliver the same services internally, the delta becomes margin—not overhead.

The question isn't whether remote care pays; it's who keeps the spread.

Recent market estimates for the global RPM sector vary widely—from $22.0 billion (Grand View Research, 2024) to $27.7 billion (MarketsandMarkets, 2024)—both projecting double-digit compound annual growth. This growth is built on a fundamental economic arbitrage: the difference between Medicare reimbursements and service delivery costs.

‍

Understanding the 2025 Medicare Economics

Medicare's national average rates for remote care create clear revenue potential:

Core RPM Codes (2025 National Averages):

• 99453 (initial setup, one-time): $19.73
• 99454 (device supply, 16+ days monitoring): $43.02/month
• 99457 (first 20 minutes clinical staff time): $47.87/month
• 99458 (each additional 20 minutes): $38.49/month

Typical Monthly Scenarios:

• Standard month (16+ days monitoring, 20 minutes management): $90.89
• Complex patient month (16+ days, 40 minutes management): $129.38

These rates vary by locality, but the economics remain consistent: proper implementation generates substantial margin regardless of delivery model.

‍

The Vendor Value Proposition: Reality vs. Promise

Full-service vendors typically provide platform technology plus monitoring staff, charging $40–$80 PMPM. The value proposition centers on turnkey implementation without infrastructure investment.

What vendors deliver:

• Technology platform and device management
• First-line monitoring and data review
• Basic patient engagement
• Documentation support

What remains your responsibility:

• Clinical escalation and decision-making
• Provider documentation and care planning
• Billing compliance and audit defense
• Patient relationship management

The critical insight: escalations return to your clinical team, documentation quality varies significantly, and audit liability remains entirely yours.

‍

Compliance Is the Rate-Limiter

The Office of Inspector General's September 2024 review revealed concerning gaps: approximately 43% of Medicare enrollees receiving RPM did not receive all required components. This points to documentation and process gaps across the market—whether programs are vendor-managed or internal.

Success requires a single, defensible audit trail containing:

• Physician orders and medical necessity documentation
• Patient consent (initial and annual renewal)
• Device day tracking (≥16 days monthly)
• Time-stamped interactive minutes
• Clinical notes linking activities to billing codes

Whether you insource or contract, this infrastructure determines program viability. The difference: internal programs provide complete visibility and control over documentation quality.

‍

Evidence-Based Outcomes Drive the Economics

Across conditions, peer-reviewed evidence supports remote monitoring's clinical value:

Diabetes Management: Meta-analyses show home telemonitoring achieves approximately 0.4–0.5% HbA1c reductions for type 2 diabetes patients—clinically meaningful improvements that reduce complications.

Appointment Adherence: Large cohorts demonstrate lower no-show rates for telemedicine (12% versus 25% for in-person visits), improving care continuity and practice efficiency.

Postpartum Care: Remote blood pressure monitoring programs report fewer readmissions and better guideline adherence for postpartum hypertension—critical for maternal health outcomes.

These improvements translate directly to value-based contract performance and quality metrics that increasingly determine reimbursement beyond fee-for-service.

‍

Modeling the Build vs. Buy Decision

Consider this representative analysis for a 1,000-patient program:

Vendor Model:

Revenue:

• 1,000 patients × $91 average monthly = $1,092,000 annually

Costs:

• Vendor fees: $60 PMPM average = $720,000 annually

Net Margin: $372,000 (34%)

Internal Model:

Revenue:

• Same $1,092,000 (better documentation often increases to $110+ average)

Costs:

• Platform technology: $12 PMPM = $144,000 annually
• Clinical staff (5.5 FTE RNs/MAs): $385,000 annually
• Program management (1.0 FTE): $95,000 annually
• Training and overhead: $50,000 annually
• Total: $674,000 annually

Net Margin: $418,000 (38%) initially, improving to 50%+ with optimization

Key insight: The margin differential compounds as programs scale and optimize billing capture.

‍

Organizational Readiness Determines Success

Before choosing a delivery model, assess these critical capabilities:

Clinical Leadership A physician champion who understands both workflows and economics is non-negotiable. Administrative leadership alone consistently fails.

Dedicated Resources Minimum 1.0 FTE program management plus appropriate clinical staffing. Part-time oversight leads to compliance gaps and poor outcomes.

Technology Infrastructure Basic EHR integration capabilities and IT support. Complex custom development isn't required—standard HL7/FHIR interfaces suffice.

Financial Sophistication Understanding that RPM ROI includes prevented utilization, not just billing revenue. Pure fee-for-service thinking undermines program design.

‍

The Strategic Decision Framework

Lean toward building if:

• You have ≥500 eligible patients
• RPM is strategic to value-based contracts
• Physician champion and dedicated FTE are available
• IT can support standard integrations
• Margin improvement is organizational priority

Consider vendor partnership if:

• Patient volume is <200
• Testing RPM as temporary pilot
• Capital or IT resources are severely constrained
• Geographic or regulatory barriers exist
• Speed to market outweighs margin optimization

Many organizations benefit from a hybrid approach: licensing technology platforms while managing clinical operations internally. This captures most margin benefits while reducing implementation complexity.

‍

Implementation Pathway for Internal Programs

Quarter 1: Foundation

• Analyze true vendor costs including hidden fees
• Assess organizational readiness honestly
• Model financials with conservative assumptions
• Select technology platform based on capabilities and support

Quarter 2: Pilot

• Launch with 50-100 carefully selected patients
• Focus on workflow refinement over volume
• Document everything for compliance and optimization
• Validate financial assumptions

Quarter 3: Scale

• Expand to 300-500 patients based on pilot learnings
• Implement quality metrics and outcome tracking
• Optimize billing capture and documentation
• Build specialty-specific protocols

Quarter 4: Optimization

• Reach 1,000+ patients with proven workflows
• Deploy predictive analytics for risk stratification
• Expand to multiple chronic conditions
• Document ROI for value-based contracting

‍

Market Dynamics Favoring Action

Healthcare technology transactions show double-digit median EV/EBITDA multiples in 2024, with particular interest in recurring revenue models like RPM. This acquisition activity signals market confidence but also consolidation pressure.

Organizations building internal capabilities now benefit from:

• Technology platform competition keeping prices reasonable
• Availability of experienced RPM clinical staff
• Clear Medicare reimbursement stability
• Growing evidence base for clinical outcomes

Those delaying face:

• Reduced platform options as consolidation continues
• Higher vendor prices as PE ownership drives margin expansion
• Competitive disadvantage in value-based contracts
• Difficulty recruiting experienced staff as market matures

‍

The Strategic Imperative

Remote patient monitoring represents a fundamental shift in chronic care delivery—from episodic intervention to continuous surveillance. The economics are proven. The technology has commoditized. The clinical evidence is robust.

The strategic question isn't whether to implement RPM, but how to capture maximum value from the model. Organizations that build sustainable internal capabilities will control their margins, their outcomes, and their competitive position. Those dependent on vendors will fund someone else's growth while accepting operational constraints.

With OIG enforcement increasing and value-based contracts demanding measurable outcomes, the time for careful capability assessment and strategic model selection is now.

‍

A few months ago, a  physician at a 12-doctor practice in rural California called me frustrated. His practice was hemorrhaging money on readmissions, his nurses were burning out from phone tag with chronic disease patients, and his administrator was getting pressure from their health system to "do something about remote monitoring."

"Look, Justin, I've watched too many tech companies promise the world and deliver nothing but problems and bills," he said. "But I'm losing patients left and right because they can't get here, and my staff is burned out trying to make the impossible work."

Today, that practice has reduced heart failure readmissions by 47%, their nursing staff spends 60% less time on routine patient data review, and (most importantly to the physician) he's having deeper, more meaningful patient conversations because the technology handles the monitoring while he focuses on healing.

The difference? He understood that remote care adoption isn't a technology problem. It's a trust and change management challenge that requires a fundamentally different approach than most practices attempt.

‍

The Uncomfortable Truth About Remote Care Adoption

While 73% of healthcare practices remain on the remote care sidelines, the 27% who've successfully implemented these programs aren't necessarily smarter or better funded. They simply approached four critical barriers differently than everyone else.

After guiding dozens of healthcare organizations through digital transformations, and watching plenty fail spectacularly, I've developed what I call the "Trust-First Framework" for remote care adoption. It starts with a counterintuitive premise: successful remote care has almost nothing to do with the technology you choose.

‍

Barrier 1: The Integration Anxiety Trap

What Everyone Thinks: "We need seamless EHR integration."

What Winners Know: Integration is about workflow preservation, not technical perfection.

This physician didn't start by evaluating HL7 FHIR capabilities or API documentation. He started by shadowing his nurses for a full day, documenting exactly how they currently managed patient data. Then he designed his remote care workflow to enhance, not replace, those existing patterns.

The technical requirements followed naturally: a platform that could push summarized alerts to their existing communication channels, not create new ones. The result? His team adopted the new system in days, not months, because it felt like an improvement to familiar workflows rather than a foreign imposition.

Financial Reality Check: Practices that prioritize workflow integration over technical sophistication see 3x faster adoption rates and 40% lower training costs. The "seamless integration" myth costs practices an average of $47,000 in extended implementation timelines.

‍

Barrier 2: The Data Avalanche Delusion

What Everyone Thinks: "More patient data means better care."

What Winners Know: Unfiltered data creates noise, not insight.

Here's what shocked this practice during their first week of remote monitoring: their system generated an incredible amount of individual data points from just 30 patients. Without intelligent filtering, their nurses would have spent four additional hours daily just reviewing normal readings.

The breakthrough came when we implemented what I call "Clinical Intelligence Layering”, or AI that  interprets it within each patient's clinical context. Instead of alerting when a patient's blood pressure hit 140/90, the system learned baseline patterns and only flagged readings that deviated from personal normal ranges.

The Numbers That Matter: Practices using AI-powered clinical triage report 60% reduction in alert fatigue, 34% improvement in nurse job satisfaction, and (crucially) 23% better patient outcome scores because clinicians focus on patients who actually need intervention.

‍

Barrier 3: The Patient Resistance Myth

What Everyone Thinks: "Older patients can't handle technology."

What Winners Know: Resistance stems from an unclear value proposition, not capability.

This physician's biggest surprise wasn't that his diabetic patients in their 70s could use glucose monitors that had cellular connectivity. It was that they became his most engaged participants once they understood how the data helped him personalize their care.

The key insight: patients don't resist technology, they resist being guinea pigs for their doctor's experiments. When patients understand that remote monitoring lets their physician spot problems earlier and adjust treatments faster, adoption rates soar.

Our Implementation Protocol:

• Week 1: Patient education focusing on personal benefits, not device features
• Week 2: Device training with family members recommended
• Week 3: First clinical review highlighting how data influenced care decisions
• Week 4: Patient feedback session to address concerns and celebrate successes

Results: Practices following this protocol achieve 87% patient adherence rates across all age demographics.

‍

Barrier 4: The Security Theater Problem

What Everyone Thinks: "HIPAA compliance is about technology safeguards."

What Winners Know: Security is about earning patient trust through transparency.

This practice learned that patients weren't worried about technical security measures they couldn't understand, they were worried about who would see their data and how it would be used. Their breakthrough came when they started explaining data protection in human terms.

Instead of discussing "end-to-end encryption protocols," they tell patients: "Your information travels from your device to our office in a locked digital envelope that only your care team can open. Even our technology partners can't read your personal health data."

The Trust Formula: Technical security enables compliance, but transparent communication builds patient confidence. Practices that explain security measures in plain language see 31% higher program enrollment rates.

‍

The Trust-First Implementation Framework

Here's the methodology that's working for forward-thinking practices:

Phase 1: Trust Assessment (Week 1-2)

Before evaluating any technology, assess trust levels within three key relationships:

• Staff-to-Leadership: Do your clinical teams trust that new technology will make their jobs better, not just different?
• Practice-to-Patient: Do your patients trust that you're implementing technology for their benefit, not operational convenience?
• Leadership-to-Vendor: Do your technology partners demonstrate commitment to your success, not just their sales quotas?

Phase 2: Workflow Integration Design (Week 3-4)

Map current patient management workflows in exhaustive detail. Design technology integration that amplifies existing strengths rather than forcing new behaviors. The California practice spent two weeks documenting their current chronic disease management process before touching any remote monitoring platform.

Phase 3: Clinical Intelligence Configuration (Week 5-6)

Configure AI triage systems based on your specific patient populations and clinical protocols. Customized intelligence creates competitive advantage.

Phase 4: Trust-Building Rollout (Week 7-10)

Launch with 25-50 patients who already demonstrate high engagement with your practice. Use their success stories to build confidence among staff and subsequent patient cohorts.

Phase 5: Scaling and Optimization (Week 11+)

Expand based on clinical outcomes and staff feedback, not arbitrary timelines. The California practice now monitors over 340 patients remotely, but they grew that number based on demonstrated success, not external pressure.

‍

The Financial Reality Nobody Talks About

Remote care is about a practice’s sustainability in an increasingly challenging healthcare economy.

One Practice's Year-One Financial Impact:

• Revenue Increase: $127,000 (from Remote Patient Monitoring billing codes)
• Cost Avoidance: $89,000 (reduced readmissions and emergency department visits)
• Efficiency Gains: $52,000 (nursing time reallocation to higher-value activities)
• Technology Investment: $34,000 (platform licensing and implementation)
• Net Positive Impact: $234,000

But here's what matters more to that physician: he’s practicing medicine the way he always wanted to, by focusing on healing relationships rather than administrative tasks.

‍

The Bigger Picture: Why This Matters Now

Remote care adoption isn't happening in isolation. It's part of a broader transformation toward value-based care delivery, accelerated by physician shortages, rural hospital closures, and changing patient expectations.

Practices that master remote care now will thrive in the next decade's healthcare landscape. Those that wait will find themselves scrambling to catch up while their competitors capture market share and talent.

But success requires acknowledging an uncomfortable truth: the biggest barrier to remote care adoption isn't technical…it's cultural. It's the willingness to trust that technology can enhance rather than replace the human elements that drew us to healthcare in the first place.

‍

Your Next Step

That California physician would tell you that his remote care success started with a single decision: trusting that his patients wanted to be partners in their health journey, not passive recipients of medical services.

If you're ready to take that leap, start with trust assessment, not technology evaluation. The right platform matters, but the right approach matters more.

The question really is whether you'll lead the transformation in your community, or watch from the sidelines.

‍

The $2.4 Billion Opportunity Hiding in Plain Sight

Medical executives today face an uncomfortable reality: while navigating shrinking margins and mounting operational pressures, many are unknowingly surrendering millions in Medicare reimbursements to third-party vendors. The culprit? Poorly structured Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM), Chronic Care Management (CCM), Remote Therapeutic Monitoring (RTM), and Advanced Primary Care Management (APCM) partnerships that prioritize vendor profits over provider sustainability.

The numbers are staggering. Medicare reimbursements for RPM services alone range from $120-$150 per patient monthly, with CCM services adding up to $60 per patient. For a modest patient panel of 500 qualified individuals, this translates to potential annual revenue exceeding $500,000. Yet most medical executives are capturing less than 30% of this opportunity.

So the question is - are you going to lead your own transformation, or watch competitors take money from you?

‍

The Hidden Cost of Third-Party Dependencies

Revenue Hemorrhaging at Scale

Current market dynamics reveal a troubling pattern. The typical vendor partnership splits reimbursements 70/30, with vendors retaining the majority. For a practice managing 200 RPM patients, this structure costs approximately $168,000 annually in lost revenue—funds that could otherwise strengthen clinical capabilities, enhance patient care, or expand service offerings.

Compliance Vulnerabilities You Can't Afford

Recent OIG findings highlight another critical concern: up to 43% of RPM patients in vendor-managed programs show potential billing irregularities. When compliance failures occur, providers—not vendors—bear ultimate responsibility for audits, penalties, and reputational damage. This represents an unacceptable transfer of risk that no prudent executive should tolerate.

Loss of Strategic Control

Perhaps most concerning is the erosion of patient relationship ownership. Third-party management creates barriers between providers and patients, limiting opportunities for care coordination, cross-selling additional services, and building the long-term loyalty essential for sustainable growth.

‍

Case Study: A $200,000 Annual Transformation

The Challenge: A 12-physician primary care group in Mississippi initially outsourced RPM and CCM operations to reduce administrative burden. Within 18 months, leadership recognized the arrangement was unsustainable—vendor fees were consuming 70% of reimbursements while patient satisfaction scores declined due to impersonal vendor interactions.

The Solution: The practice implemented an in-house remote care management system powered by AI-driven automation, maintaining direct patient relationships while streamlining operations.

The Results (First 12 months):

• Revenue Retention: Increased from 30% to 85% of total reimbursements
• Cost Reduction: $50,000 savings in the first quarter alone
• Patient Satisfaction: 23% improvement in remote care program ratings
• Compliance: Zero billing irregularities or audit flags
• ROI: 340% return on technology and training investments

This transformation enabled reinvestment in clinical staff expansion, patient education initiatives, and practice growth—creating a virtuous cycle of improved care and enhanced profitability.

The Executive's Implementation Framework

Phase 1: Strategic Assessment and Opportunity Mapping (Month 1)

Comprehensive Revenue Audit Deploy automated tools to analyze your existing patient database, identifying every missed billing opportunity and eligibility gap. Modern EHR-integrated solutions can complete this analysis in days rather than months, providing immediate clarity on revenue potential.

Vendor Cost Analysis Calculate the true cost of your current vendor relationships, including direct fees, lost reimbursement percentages, and hidden compliance risks. Most executives discover their actual costs exceed 60% of potential revenue.

Phase 2: Technology Infrastructure and Automation (Months 2-3)

AI-Driven Platform Implementation Replace manual, error-prone processes with intelligent automation that handles patient identification, eligibility verification, billing compliance, and claims management. The right platform reduces administrative overhead by 70% while improving accuracy rates above 98%.

EHR Integration and Workflow Optimization Ensure seamless data flow between your existing systems and new remote care management tools. Proper integration eliminates duplicate data entry and creates unified patient records that support both clinical care and billing efficiency.

Phase 3: Team Development and Process Refinement (Month 4)

Strategic Staff Training Invest in comprehensive training that transforms your clinical and administrative teams into remote care management experts. Focus on both technology proficiency and patient engagement strategies that differentiate your program from impersonal vendor alternatives.

Quality Assurance and Compliance Protocols Establish robust monitoring systems that ensure billing accuracy, patient care standards, and regulatory compliance. Proactive quality management prevents costly audit issues while supporting continuous improvement.

Phase 4: Performance Optimization and Scaling (Months 5+)

Data-Driven Performance Management Track key metrics including patient enrollment rates, billing accuracy, denial rates, patient adherence, and net revenue per patient. Use these insights to refine workflows and identify expansion opportunities.

Measured Growth Strategy Scale enrollment systematically, ensuring quality standards remain high as patient volume increases. A measured approach protects care quality while maximizing revenue growth potential.

‍

The Strategic Imperative: Act Now or Fall Behind

The remote care landscape is rapidly consolidating around providers who understand the strategic importance of direct patient relationships and revenue control. Organizations that continue relying on traditional vendor partnerships will find themselves at an increasingly unsustainable competitive disadvantage.

Three Critical Factors Driving Urgency:

1. Regulatory Evolution: CMS continues expanding remote care reimbursement categories, creating new revenue opportunities for prepared organizations
2. Patient Expectations: Consumers increasingly expect seamless, technology-enabled care experiences that strengthen provider relationships
3. Competitive Dynamics: Early adopters of in-house remote care management are capturing market share and establishing difficult-to-replicate competitive advantages

‍

Technology as a Strategic Enabler

The difference between successful transformation and costly failure often comes down to platform selection. Modern AI-driven remote care management systems—such as FairPath—typically cost $10-$15 per patient monthly compared to $50-$80 for traditional vendor arrangements.

More importantly, the right technology platform provides:

• Complete Revenue Retention: Keep 85-90% of reimbursements rather than 30%
• Compliance Assurance: Automated monitoring prevents billing irregularities
• Operational Efficiency: Reduce administrative overhead by 60-70%
• Patient Relationship Control: Maintain direct communication and care coordination

‍

Your Next Strategic Decision

Medical executives face a defining choice: continue accepting diminished returns from vendor-dependent models or invest in the capabilities that will define successful healthcare organizations over the next decade.

The practices that thrive will be those that recognize remote care management not as an operational burden to outsource, but as a strategic capability to develop and optimize. They will capture the full financial benefits while strengthening patient relationships and clinical outcomes.

The transformation framework exists. The technology is proven. The only question is whether your organization will lead this evolution or struggle to catch up with competitors who acted decisively.

The time for strategic action is now.

‍

If you've spent any time managing a remote patient monitoring (RPM) program, you already know the drill: juggling the 16-day rule, keeping track of clinical minutes, chasing compliance, and often wondering if this is really what patient-centered care was meant to feel like.

Providers across the country have long voiced frustrations that RPM rules felt overly rigid, causing them to bend clinical judgment to fit billing standards, rather than billing standards serving clinical judgment. If you're nodding your head, you’re not alone, and the American Medical Association (AMA) has been listening.
‍

The Story You Already Know Too Well

Consider Dr. Patel, an internist whose practice enthusiastically adopted RPM two years ago. Initially, Dr. Patel saw real promise: better patient outcomes, fewer hospital readmissions, and happier patients who felt truly cared for at home. But as his RPM program scaled, complexity piled up.

The 16-day monitoring rule, for example, began to feel arbitrary—especially when some patients only needed a week of post-surgical monitoring, yet Dr. Patel’s staff had to keep them enrolled longer to meet billing requirements. Nurses spent countless extra minutes on calls not always needed, just to hit that 20-minute threshold. The staff felt burdened; patient care, ironically, sometimes suffered rather than improved.

What Dr. Patel, and thousands of providers like him, needed was flexibility. He needed RPM guidelines that actually mirrored clinical realities, not forced clinicians to work around them.

Thankfully, that’s exactly what’s coming.
‍

Why These Changes Are Long Overdue

Starting January 2026, significant adjustments to the RPM CPT code set will take effect, thanks to AMA’s recent CPT Editorial Panel decisions. These changes reflect a genuine response to provider feedback, your feedback, bringing RPM rules into alignment with clinical needs and real-world patient care scenarios.

Instead of forcing you to stretch clinical judgment to fit billing, the AMA is reshaping RPM coding rules around realistic clinical practice. This means shorter monitoring periods, less burdensome communication thresholds, and simpler administration overall.

Here’s exactly how the new rules address your practice's everyday challenges:

What Changes for CPT Code 99454 in 2026?

The current CPT 99454 requires at least 16 days of monitoring data for reimbursement. But starting in 2026, a new RPM device-supply code will cover monitoring between 2 and 15 days. CPT 99454 itself is changing to clearly define the coverage as 16 to 30 days.

What does this mean practically? If a patient needs only 10 days of post-operative monitoring, you can now comfortably provide precisely that amount of care without worrying about arbitrary billing minimums. Your billing now supports your clinical judgment, not the other way around.

What Changes for CPT Code 99457 and 99458 in 2026?

You’ve probably experienced the frustration of trying to hit that magical 20-minute monthly interaction time for CPT 99457, sometimes stretching patient conversations just to meet requirements. Starting in 2026, this threshold drops to 11–20 minutes, reflecting more realistically how patient interactions truly unfold. Additionally, CPT 99458 moves from 20-minute increments to more manageable 10-minute increments for additional interactions.

Instead of artificially extending conversations or stressing over minutes, your team can have clinically meaningful interactions without the anxiety of a stopwatch running in the background.
‍

A Game-Changer for Your Technology Platform

These new coding guidelines represent more than just billing adjustments—they demand evolution from your RPM technology. Platforms that previously focused only on rigid data collection and compliance rules must now become sophisticated clinical tools, capable of flexible care management and seamless documentation.

That's where FairPath comes in.

FairPath was designed precisely for these future challenges. Unlike older platforms that merely track days and minutes, FairPath enables you to effortlessly manage these flexible monitoring windows and new interaction thresholds. The platform intelligently guides clinical staff through documenting the specific clinical rationale behind shorter monitoring durations or varying interaction lengths.

Imagine the confidence you'll feel when every billing submission clearly reflects documented clinical judgment rather than arbitrary numeric rules. With FairPath, your RPM program becomes genuinely patient-centered, fully compliant, and clinically intuitive.
‍

Seamless Transition, Powerful Results

These CPT changes aren't merely incremental, they represent a true pivot toward patient-centered remote care. But to realize their full potential, your practice needs technology that’s ready for these shifts.

FairPath helps your practice smoothly transition to this new era. By proactively integrating these upcoming AMA rules into its architecture, FairPath provides built-in compliance, automated coding, and easy-to-follow clinical documentation workflows that align perfectly with the new guidelines. Your staff will spend less time worrying about billing and compliance and more time focused on meaningful patient interactions.
‍

Your RPM Program’s Brightest Days Are Ahead

Dr. Patel, our internist from earlier, can finally breathe easier knowing his RPM program is about to become far simpler to manage and far more patient-centric. The same is true for your practice.

These AMA changes are the industry's signal that remote patient monitoring is finally maturing into the flexible, intuitive, clinically driven program it was always intended to be. With the right tools—tools like FairPath—you can confidently embrace this evolution, enhancing both patient outcomes and practice satisfaction.

By proactively understanding and preparing for these RPM code updates, your practice positions itself at the forefront of patient-centered remote care management. RPM is finally becoming exactly what it always promised…a system designed around clinical needs and compassionate care.

Are you ready for what's next in RPM? FairPath is here to help you every step of the way.

‍