National Patterns of Remote Patient Monitoring Service Availability at US Hospitals and their Readmission Performance for Cardiovascular Conditions
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background
Digital remote patient monitoring (RPM) enables longitudinal care outside traditional healthcare settings, especially in the vulnerable period after hospitalizations, with broad coverage of the service by payers. We sought to evaluate patterns of RPM service availability at US hospitals and the association of these services with 30-day readmissions for two key cardiovascular conditions, heart failure (HF) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
Methods
We used contemporary national data from the American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey to ascertain US hospitals offering RPM services for post-discharge or chronic care and used census-based county-level data to define the characteristics of the communities they serve. We linked these with hospitals’ benchmarked risk-standardized relative performance on readmissions (excess readmission ratio [ERR]) from CMS Hospital Quality Reports (2018-2022). We used mixed-effects multivariable regression to examine the association between RPM services at hospitals and hospital characteristics-adjusted ERR for HF and AMI.
Results
There were 2,754 hospitals with CMS quality report data. Over five years of the study, there was a 38.3% increase in the number of hospitals offering RPM services, rising from 952 (42.0%) hospitals in 2018 to 1,237 (58.1%) in 2022. However, the availability of RPM services varied across different hospital groups with smaller, non-teaching hospitals, particularly those serving rural, low-income communities, and those located in the South, were less likely to offer RPM services. There was a consistent association between the availability of RPM services and better risk-standardized readmission performance for HF, with lower ERR for hospitals offering RPM compared with those not offering RPM (absolute difference, -0.016 [-0.023, -0.009], standardized difference, 24.6%, p<0.001). However, no such association was observed for AMI (-0.007 [-0.016, 0.002], standardized difference, 10.3%, p=0.19).
Conclusions
In this national study of US hospitals, there has been a large increase in the availability of RPM services but with large variation among hospitals, with lower availability in hospitals serving low-income and rural communities. RPM services were associated with lower hospital readmission rates for HF but not AMI.
