
Share
New Medicare policies aim to improve data privacy and care quality by restricting third-party vendors in remote patient monitoring, but they could disrupt vital health services for many.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has proposed significant changes to how Medicare pays for remote patient monitoring (RPM) and remote therapeutic monitoring (RTM) services. Effective January 1, 2027, these changes will limit the use of third-party vendors, potentially disrupting vital health management tools for patients with chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension.
The policy shift is outlined in a 1,592-page draft rule released this week as part of the Medicare Part B payment policy changes for physicians under the calendar year 2027 Physician Fee Schedule. The proposal aims to enhance program integrity by ensuring that RPM and RTM services are provided directly by clinical staff employed by the billing practitioner's practice.
If finalized, this rule will have far-reaching implications for RPM companies, primary care physicians, hospitals, and health systems. Currently, third-party vendors play a crucial role in providing these services, often integrating sophisticated technology to monitor patients' vital signs and provide timely interventions. The elimination of these vendors could lead to significant operational challenges for healthcare providers.
Seth Hain, who led AI efforts at Epic, has highlighted the importance of technology in healthcare. In his recent departure from the EHR giant, Hain emphasized that advancements in AI can enhance patient care when integrated thoughtfully. However, the CMS proposal raises concerns about whether smaller practices will have the resources to implement and maintain these technologies without external support.
Health tech leaders argue that the new restrictions could limit access to essential health services for many patients. Remote monitoring has been a lifeline for individuals managing chronic conditions, allowing them to receive continuous care from the comfort of their homes. The shift away from third-party vendors might strain healthcare providers who are already stretched thin by resource constraints.

The CMS proposal is driven by concerns about program integrity and the quality of care provided by some vendors. A September 2024 report from the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) called for increased oversight of RPM in Medicare, citing a dramatic increase in its use from 2019 to 2022. The OIG found that while remote patient monitoring has expanded rapidly, about 43% of enrollees did not receive all three components required for the service to be effective.
The proposed changes to Medicare's RPM and RTM policies highlight a critical balance between ensuring high-quality care and maintaining access to essential health services. While the CMS aims to address concerns about program integrity and low-quality care, the potential disruption of third-party vendors could have significant consequences for both healthcare providers and patients.
For patients, the loss of these services could mean reduced access to timely and effective health monitoring, potentially leading to more hospitalizations and higher healthcare costs. For healthcare providers, the new rules may require substantial investments in technology and training to maintain the same level of service currently provided by third-party vendors.
As the public comment period for this draft rule opens, stakeholders from various sectors are expected to voice their concerns and suggestions. The final decision will have lasting impacts on how remote patient monitoring is implemented and funded, shaping the future of healthcare delivery for millions of Americans.
Tags
Original Sources
CMS proposal to block third-party vendors will upend remote monitoring services, health tech leaders say
↗ https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/regulatory/medicare-proposes-stricter-requirements-remote-monitoring-services-limiting-use-third
About the author
Amara's entry point into AI was an epidemiology role at a London research hospital, where she spent five years studying how digital health tools reached — or conspicuously failed to reach — underserved communities. Watching early algorithmic systems in healthcare quietly entrench existing inequalities, she redirected her career toward the systemic consequences of AI at scale. She covers AI through an unflinching lens: who benefits, who bears the cost, and what evidence actually says versus what the press release claims. Her writing is calm and precise, but she doesn't mistake balance for neutrality.
More from The Steward →This Week's Edition
27 July 2026
67 articles
Related Articles
Related Articles
More Stories
© 2026 Cedar & Bloom. All rights reserved.