Remote Monitoring Leadership Council Integrated Outcomes and Evidence Summary

RMLC integrated evidence from 100,000+ RPM patients: –14.4 mmHg SBP & –30 mg/dL glucose reductions, $14K yearly cost savings per patient, $18:$1 ROI, 50% fewer hospitalizations. Real-world RPM outcomes that outperform trials and refute payer rollback claims.

HealthSnap + RMLC Research & Real-World Evidence

HealthSnap has compiled real-world clinical and economic outcomes from more than 100,000 monitored patients and over 25 million biometric data points, as detailed in the HealthSnap 2025 Clinical Outcomes Annual Report. These data are shared with CMS, payers, policymakers, health systems, and clinical teams worldwide. As part of the Remote Management Leadership Council (RMLC), HealthSnap’s outcomes are combined with parallel datasets from other member organizations to build a unified evidence hub for remote patient monitoring (RPM). This repository highlights the unprecedented clinical improvements, cost savings, and gains in access and equity achieved through high-quality RPM.

The integrated dataset strengthens support for CMS’s decision to maintain and expand RPM reimbursement and stands in sharp contrast to UnitedHealthcare’s proposed 2026 rollback. Across RMLC members, RPM consistently improves chronic disease control and reduces costly utilization. Below are several key findings—including those recently presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions.

Return on Investment (ROI)
A retrospective analysis with a large health system compared utilization and costs in 589 patients one year before vs. after RPM enrollment. Median total cost of care decreased by $14,013 per patient per year. Every $1 invested in RPM generated roughly $18 in downstream medical cost savings. These savings were driven by 50% fewer hospitalizations, 27% fewer emergency department visits, and a 97% reduction in high-severity blood pressure alerts, reflecting true physiologic stabilization rather than disengagement.

Clinical Improvements

HealthSnap’s RPM program produced the following outcomes among patients with hypertension and diabetes:

Hypertension Outcomes

• Average systolic BP reduction: –14.4 mmHg
• Continued SBP and DBP improvements for 30 months or longer on the program
• 97% reduction in the number of alerts triggered after one year
  
  

Diabetes Outcomes

• Average fasting glucose reduction: –30 mg/dL
• Comparable improvements across all socioeconomic quartiles, demonstrating that cellular-enabled RPM closes digital-access gaps
• 90% reduction in dysglycemic alerts within six months

RMLC Principles for High-Quality Remote Patient Monitoring

The Remote Management Leadership Council (RMLC) has defined a unified set of principles that establish when Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) is clinically appropriate, how it should be delivered, and what constitutes high-quality, patient-centered remote care. These principles guide all RMLC member organizations, including HealthSnap, and provide a consistent framework for evaluating federal policy decisions and highlighting areas where commercial payer positions diverge from established standards. Together, they emphasize continuity of care, patient empowerment, clinical rigor, and responsible use of technology.

The principles outline several core commitments: bridging care gaps through continuous monitoring and timely clinical intervention; enhancing patient self-efficacy through education and engagement; and demonstrating measurable clinical impact supported by longitudinal outcomes and published evidence. They also mandate that RPM be used only when clinically indicated, delivered within safe and efficient workflows, and billed in full compliance with all federal and state regulations. Members must safeguard patient data through HIPAA-compliant infrastructure and ensure accurate integration into the medical record. Finally, the RMLC affirms that RPM is a mechanism for advancing health equity by expanding access to high-quality care for patients with chronic conditions, limited mobility, geographic barriers, or inadequate access to traditional healthcare system.

Peer-Reviewed Evidence Supporting RPM (All Citations Verified and Expanded)

To refute UnitedHealthcare’s statement that RPM lacks sufficient evidence, the RMLC compiled a verified library of randomized trials, meta-analyses, and guideline statements from JAMA, Hypertension, Circulation, Journal of Hypertension, BMC Medicine, Diabetes Care, and others.

Peer-Reviewed Evidence Supporting RPM (All Citations Verified and Expanded)

To address misinformation and respond to UnitedHealthcare’s assertion that RPM lacks sufficient evidence, the RMLC reviewed and verified a comprehensive library of randomized trials, meta-analyses, and guideline statements published in JAMA, Hypertension, Circulation, Journal of Hypertension, BMC Medicine, Diabetes Care, and other high-impact journals.

Hypertension & Cardiovascular RPM Evidence

• Acharya S, et al. (2024). Self-measured blood pressure–guided pharmacotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of U.S.-based telemedicine trials. Hypertension, 81(3), 648–657.
  
  
• Agarwal R, Bills JE, Hecht TJ, Light RP. (2011). Role of home blood pressure monitoring in overcoming therapeutic inertia and improving hypertension control: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hypertension, 57(1), 29–38.
  
  
• Blood AJ, et al. (2023). Results of a remotely delivered hypertension and lipid program in more than 10,000 patients across a diverse health care network. JAMA Cardiology, 8(1), 12–21.
  
  
• Feldman DI, et al. (2025). Clinical and engagement results of a nationwide comprehensive remote patient care hypertension program. JACC: Advances, 4(7), 101892.
  
  
• Grover S, Mishra HP, Gupta R, Gupta LK. (2025). Effect of telemonitoring and home blood pressure monitoring on blood pressure reduction in hypertensive adults: A network meta-analysis. Journal of Hypertension, 43(7), 1091–1098.
  
  
• Kalagara R, et al. (2022). Blood pressure management through application-based telehealth platforms: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Hypertension, 40(7), 1249–1256.
  
  
• Margolis KL, et al. (2013). Effect of home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist management on blood pressure control: A cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 310(1), 46–56.
  
  
• Margolis KL, et al. (2018). Long-term outcomes of home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist management among adults with uncontrolled hypertension. JAMA Network Open, 1(5), e181617.
  
  
• Margolis KL, et al. (2020). Cardiovascular events and costs with home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist management. Hypertension, 76(4), 1097–1103.
  
  
• Martínez-Ibáñez P, et al. (2023). Home blood pressure self-monitoring plus self-titration for poorly controlled hypertension: The ADAMPA randomized clinical trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 38(1), 81–89.
  
  
• McManus RJ, et al. (2014). Self-monitoring and medication self-titration for hypertension in high-risk adults: The TASMIN-SR randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 312(8), 799–808.
  
  
• Mills KT, et al. (2018). Comparative effectiveness of implementation strategies for blood pressure control in hypertensive patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine, 168(2), 110–120.
  
  
• Persell SD, et al. (2024). Blood pressure outcomes at 18 months in primary care patients prescribed remote physiological monitoring. Journal of Human Hypertension, 38(3), 286–288.
  
  
• Prendergast H, et al. (2025). Emergency department-based education and mobile health empowerment for hypertension: The TOUCHED randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiology, 10(7), 657–665.
  
  
• Shimbo D, et al. (2020). Self-measured blood pressure monitoring at home: A joint policy statement from the American Heart Association and American Medical Association. Circulation, 142(4), e42–e63.
  
  
• Teng TQ, et al. (2025). Efficiency of remote monitoring and guidance in blood pressure management: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Medicine.
  
  

Diabetes & Metabolic RPM Evidence

• American Diabetes Association (2025). Standards of Care in Diabetes—2025: Diabetes Technology. Diabetes Care, 48(Supplement 1).
  
  
• Bollyky JB, et al. (2018). Remote lifestyle coaching plus connected glucose monitoring improves metabolic control in type 2 diabetes. Journal of Diabetes Research, Article 3961730.
  
  
• Di Molfetta S, et al. (2022). Real-time transmission of glucose data improves metabolic control in insulin-treated patients: The DIAMONDS randomized clinical trial. Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, 45(9), 1663–1671.
  
  
• Fernando ME, et al. (2022). Remote interventions for simultaneous optimization of hypertension, hyperglycemia, and dyslipidemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 13, 916377.
  
  
• Lee JY, et al. (2018). The impact of telehealth remote monitoring on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Health Services Research, 18(1), 495.
  
  
• Shen Y, et al. (2018). Internet-based interventions for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(5), e172.
  
  
• Su D, et al. (2016). Does telemedicine improve outcomes for diabetes? A meta-analysis of 55 randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 116, 136–148.