Back

Program Cost and Return on Investment of a Remote Patient Monitoring Program for Hypertension Management

Zhang, D. S.; Millet, L. S.; Bellows, B. K.; Lee, S.; Mann, D. M.

2025-01-29 health economics
10.1101/2025.01.29.25321334 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate the program costs and financial sustainability of a remote patient monitoring for hypertension (RPM-HTN) program implemented in the cardiology practice of a large healthcare system. Study DesignThis economic evaluation utilized field observation, interviews, literature review, and quantitative analysis to assess RPM-HTN from March to June 2024 at New York University Langone Health MethodsA costing tool was developed to quantify program costs, including personnel, start-up, equipment, and supply expenses, expressed in 2024 USD. Reimbursement rates were estimated using the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. The return on investment (ROI) was calculated as the ratio of net return to program costs. Univariate sensitivity analyses evaluated the impact of varying a single parameter at a time on ROI. ResultsThe average cost of RPM-HTN was $330 per patient (range: $208-$452), with an annual program cost of $33,000 (range: $20,785-$45,168) for 100 patients enrolled from the Cardiology Division. Key expenses included data review by nurse practitioners ($172/patient), blood pressure device costs ($48/patient), and nurse-patient communication ($36/patient). ROI averaged 22.2% at 55% patient compliance with the RPM-HTN program. This ROI ranged from-11.1% (assuming program costs of $452) to 93.3% (assuming program costs of $208) per patient. ROI was most sensitive to changes in data review costs, insurance reimbursement, patient compliance, and device setup. ConclusionsThe RPM-HTN program demonstrated positive ROI, indicating financial sustainability in a large urban healthcare system. Improving patient compliance with the program and reducing human resource costs are critical for scaling RPM-HTN programs effectively.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.