Remote physiological monitoring studies published over the past year give care teams a clearer view of what works at home. Remote physiological monitoring is often called remote patient monitoring (RPM). It uses connected devices to send readings such as blood pressure, weight, and oxygen saturation to a care team. The evidence base has grown quickly. It now includes large Medicare claims analyses, randomized trials, and real-world programs in primary care, cardiology, and surgery.
This Tenovi research round-up reviews four recent remote physiological monitoring studies. Two focus on chronic care. One looks at acute care after surgery. The fourth asks a different question: what happens to patient access when a practice adopts RPM?
Each summary covers the study design, the main results, and the limits worth knowing before applying the findings. That last part matters. Not every result carries the same weight, and clinicians deserve a clear picture.
Key Findings From Recent Remote Physiological Monitoring Studies
Here is a quick look at what the four remote physiological monitoring studies found:
- Blood pressure: Among Medicare patients with stage 2 hypertension, 75% no longer met stage 2 criteria after 12 months of RPM with nurse care coaching.
- Hospital stays: A national remote care program was linked to a 27% lower hospitalization rate among Medicare patients with chronic disease.
- Surgical recovery: Patients monitored by triage nurses after cancer surgery regained activity somewhat faster and were less likely to drop out.
- Access: Primary care practices that adopted RPM saw more patients and completed more outpatient visits than similar practices that did not.
Study 1: RPM and Stage 2 Hypertension in Medicare Patients
The first of these remote physiological monitoring studies focused on a high-risk group. Researchers followed Medicare patients with stage 2 hypertension. The study defined this as systolic pressure of 140 mm Hg or higher, or diastolic pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher. The retrospective cohort study appeared in the American Journal of Managed Care in September 2025.
A large primary care group in the Northeast enrolled patients with a hypertension diagnosis. Of 3,403 patients who consented, 1,594 stayed engaged for a full year. Of those, 652 had stage 2 hypertension at their first reading.
Every patient received a cellular blood pressure monitor. Readings went straight to the RPM dashboard and the provider’s electronic health record (EHR). A licensed practical nurse served as each patient’s care coach. Coaches called monthly, responded to out-of-range alerts, and flagged trends for medication review by the patient’s provider.
Results
Mean blood pressure in the stage 2 group fell from 152/85 mm Hg at baseline to 132/74 mm Hg at 12 months. Most of the drop came early. By month three, the mean was already 135/76 mm Hg.
The share of patients meeting stage 2 criteria fell from 100% to 25% over the year. Even the 163 patients who stayed in stage 2 improved. Their mean pressure dropped from 155/87 mm Hg to 146/77 mm Hg.
Patients also took more readings as the program went on. They averaged 16 readings in the first 30 days and 25 per month from month three onward. The authors reported no transmission errors with the cellular devices.
Limitations to Keep in Mind
The study had no control group, so it shows an association rather than cause and effect. Only 47% of enrolled patients stayed engaged for all 12 months. Those who left may have differed from those who stayed. The two authors also hold leadership roles at the RPM company that ran the program.
Still, the pattern is useful. Consistent home readings, paired with a nurse who acts on them, gave providers far more data than two or three clinic checks a year.
Study 2: Fewer Hospitalizations With Remote Patient Care
The second study moved from blood pressure numbers to hospital use. Published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Innovations, Quality & Outcomes, it is among the larger remote physiological monitoring studies to use patient-level Medicare claims.
Researchers compared 5,872 patients enrolled in a remote patient care program with 11,449 matched controls. Patients came from primary care and cardiology clinics in 15 states. Enrollment ran from July 2022 through October 2023. The program paired device readings with a clinical team that triaged vitals and held visits using standardized, guideline-based protocols.
Results
Hospitalizations dropped. The enrolled group saw a decline of 23 hospitalizations per 1,000 patients per year. The control group saw an increase of 41 per 1,000. The authors calculated this as a 27% relative reduction.
Total cost of care fell by $1,302 per patient per year compared with controls. Lower inpatient costs drove most of that change. For patients, the more important point is simple: fewer nights in the hospital.
Limitations to Keep in Mind
This was a retrospective analysis, and matching cannot remove every difference between groups. Results were not broken out by how engaged each patient was. The program was delivered by a single health technology company in partnership with health systems, so other models may perform differently.
Study 3: Remote Monitoring After Cancer Surgery
The third study shifts to acute care. Patients now go home sooner after surgery, and complications often surface after discharge. This randomized trial, published in npj Digital Medicine in August 2025, adds randomized evidence to the body of remote physiological monitoring studies in surgical care.
City of Hope researchers randomized 382 adults having major abdominal or pelvic surgery for gastrointestinal, genitourinary, or gynecologic cancers. Both groups wore a wrist accelerometer and reported symptoms in an app. The difference was what happened next.
In the RPM care group, triage nurses called patients when step counts or symptoms crossed set thresholds. In the comparison group, patients got an automated message telling them to call the triage line. The study was designed this way on purpose. It tested nurse action on the data, not the technology alone.
Results
Patients in the RPM care group regained daily steps about 6% faster over the first two weeks after discharge. They also reported less symptom interference with daily activities at days 14 and 90. A post-hoc analysis suggested fewer major complications in the RPM group.
Early withdrawal was lower with nurse follow-up: 14.8% compared with 26.9%. Nurses responded to 96.5% of alerts, with calls averaging about 12 minutes. Readmission rates did not differ between groups.
Limitations to Keep in Mind
The authors were candid. Several differences were statistically significant but fell short of the thresholds they had set for clinical importance. Missing data was also a challenge, especially in the comparison group. Even so, the trial points to a clear lesson. A short, focused monitoring window with prompt nurse follow-up can support recovery during the first weeks at home.
Study 4: How RPM Adoption Affects Access in Primary Care
The last of these remote physiological monitoring studies looked at practices instead of individual patients. Published in Health Affairs in November 2025, it used Medicare claims from 2017 through 2023.
Researchers studied 754 primary care practices that adopted RPM between 2017 and 2021. They matched 740 of them to 2,215 similar practices that did not adopt RPM. The team expected that practices might focus on RPM patients at the expense of others. That is not what they found.
Results
After adoption, practices saw 2.9% more patients per quarter and completed 4.3% more outpatient visits than matched controls. Patients most likely to use RPM tended to have a higher disease burden and were more often dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. Primary care visits for this higher-need group increased at adopting practices.
The authors also reported higher Medicare revenue at adopting practices, tied to RPM and related care management services. Their broader conclusion centered on access. Medicare coverage of RPM may help expand care for patients with high-risk conditions and for historically underserved groups.
Limitations to Keep in Mind
The analysis covered traditional Medicare only, so results may not apply to other payers. It also could not capture RPM work that did not meet billing thresholds. The authors called for more research on how staffing and technology investments affect provider workload.
What 2026 CPT Code Changes Mean for This Research
Several of these remote physiological monitoring studies involved patients who needed monitoring for short periods or small amounts of monthly staff time. The CMS 2026 Physician Fee Schedule now reflects those realities more closely.
Two new codes took effect on January 1, 2026. CPT code 99445 covers device supply and data transmission for 2 to 15 days in a 30-day period. CPT code 99470 covers the first 10 minutes of treatment management time in a calendar month. Post-discharge monitoring, like the surgical trial above, is one example of care these codes were designed to describe.
Requirements, rates, and payer rules vary. For a full review of each code, see our 2026 RPM CPT codes guide.
Common Threads Across Remote Physiological Monitoring Studies
Read side by side, these remote physiological monitoring studies share a few consistent lessons:
- Clinical follow-through drives results. Care coaches, triage nurses, and protocol-based clinical teams acted on the data in every positive study. Devices collected readings. People changed care.
- Engagement is the hardest part. Fewer than half of enrolled patients in the hypertension study stayed for a full year. Programs need onboarding, reminders, and regular contact to keep patients involved.
- Reliable data transmission matters. Cellular devices that send readings without Wi-Fi or smartphone pairing remove a common barrier, especially for patients 65 and up.
- Access can widen for higher-need patients. The Medicare claims analysis found more visits for patients with a higher disease burden, not fewer visits for everyone else.
For more research on care delivered outside the clinic, read our round-up of new telemedicine studies.
FAQs About Remote Physiological Monitoring Studies
This section answers common questions about remote physiological monitoring studies. It covers what the term means, what recent research shows for chronic and acute care, and how 2026 coding updates relate to the findings.
1) What are remote physiological monitoring studies?
Remote physiological monitoring studies are research projects that measure how home-based monitoring affects patient care. They track outcomes such as blood pressure control, hospital use, recovery after surgery, and access to care. Designs range from randomized trials to large reviews of Medicare claims.
2) Is remote physiological monitoring the same as remote patient monitoring?
Yes, in most clinical and billing contexts. CMS uses the term remote physiologic monitoring in its code descriptions. Most care teams and vendors call the same service remote patient monitoring, or RPM.
3) Does remote physiological monitoring improve blood pressure control?
Recent evidence suggests it can, especially with active clinical support. In one 2025 study, 75% of Medicare patients with stage 2 hypertension no longer met stage 2 criteria after a year of RPM with nurse coaching. Programs without clinician follow-up tend to show smaller effects.
4) Can remote patient monitoring reduce hospital stays?
Some studies show a reduction. One large Medicare claims analysis found a 27% lower hospitalization rate among patients in a national remote care program. Results depend on program design and patient engagement.
5) Can remote physiological monitoring help in acute care after surgery?
It can support recovery. In a 2025 randomized trial of cancer surgery patients, nurse follow-up on remote data was linked to faster activity recovery and less symptom interference. Readmission rates did not differ, so more research is needed.
6) What changed for remote physiologic monitoring codes in 2026?
CMS added two codes for 2026. CPT 99445 covers 2 to 15 days of device data in a 30-day period. CPT 99470 covers the first 10 minutes of monthly treatment management time. Both give care teams options for shorter or lighter monitoring needs.
Understanding Remote Physiological Monitoring Studies
Recent remote physiological monitoring studies point in a steady direction. Home monitoring works best when a clinical team reviews the data and acts on it. The stage 2 hypertension study showed large blood pressure improvements with nurse coaching. The Medicare claims analysis linked remote care to fewer hospital stays. The surgical trial showed modest recovery gains with prompt nurse follow-up. The Health Affairs study found that practices adopting RPM expanded access rather than narrowing it.
Each study has limits, and none answers every question. Together, they give providers and care teams practical evidence to guide program design. With new 2026 codes for shorter monitoring periods, more patients in both acute and chronic care may now be good candidates for RPM.
Tenovi provides cellular-connected remote patient monitoring and remote therapeutic monitoring devices, the Tenovi Cellular Gateway, device fulfillment, and data APIs. We support RPM software companies, care management organizations, telehealth platforms, health systems, payers, and pharmacies in delivering proactive care at home. Contact us today for a free demo and consultation.
