Remote patient monitoring (RPM) has expanded from a limited telehealth service into a large healthcare market with growing Medicare use, public-program coverage, connected devices, and reimbursement pathways. The figures below distinguish measured results from estimates and forecasts and identify the relevant geography and period.
Contents
- Medicare use and public coverage
- Market size and forecasts
- Devices and solution revenue
- Reimbursement and billing figures
- What telemonitoring studies measured
- Clinical outcomes across conditions
Medicare use and public coverage
RPM use among Medicare enrollees rose sharply during the early 2020s. The Telehealth Research Recap: Remote Patient Monitoring reported that RPM use was more than 10 times higher in 2022 than in 2019. This is a relative change across those two years, rather than a percentage share of all Medicare enrollees.
The The Future of Remote Patient Monitoring report recorded 594 monthly RPM claims per 100,000 Medicare enrollees in 2021. The same source reported that Medicare RPM spending increased from $5.5 million in 2019 to $101 million in 2021. These spending figures cover the stated Medicare periods and should not be treated as a current annual total.
Public coverage also expanded across states. As of March 2023, 34 state Medicaid programs covered RPM services, according to The Future of Remote Patient Monitoring. A later state scan in that report identified 37 state Medicaid programs reimbursing RPM. The two counts refer to different points in the report’s state review, so they are not duplicate measurements for the same date.
Medicare payments for RPM exceeded $500 million in 2024, according to the HHS Office of Inspector General. This later figure is not directly comparable with the $101 million reported for 2021 without knowing whether the accounting scope and payment categories are identical.
Market size and forecasts
Grand View Research estimated the global RPM system market at $22.03 billion in 2024 and estimated it at $26.05 billion in 2025. Its forecast puts the market at $110.71 billion by 2033, with a projected 19.8% compound annual growth rate from 2025 through 2033.
The forecast describes a market estimate, not a guaranteed outcome. It also uses a different time frame from the Medicare claims and spending figures above. A global system-market estimate should therefore be read as a measure of commercial market scale, not as a direct measure of U.S. clinical utilization.
Regional and segment data from Grand View Research add context to the global estimate:
| Measure | Reported figure | Period or forecast window |
|---|---|---|
| North America share of global RPM system market | 40.53% | 2024 |
| Special monitors segment share | 89.95% | 2023 |
| Diabetes share of RPM market | 13.1% | 2024 |
| Hospital-based patient segment share | 61.46% | 2024 |
| Projected global RPM system market | $110.71 billion | 2033 |
Grand View Research identified Asia Pacific as the fastest-growing RPM market region. That description is directional; the supplied figure does not quantify the region’s growth rate. The same source estimated that the U.S. RPM market generated $5,556.8 million in 2024 and forecast it to reach $27,326.8 million by 2033.
The segment figures describe different slices of the market. For example, the 61.46% hospital-based patient figure is a patient-segment share, while the 40.53% North America figure is a geographic share. They should not be added together or interpreted as shares of one common denominator.
Devices and solution revenue
Business Wire, reporting ResearchAndMarkets figures, counted 76.7 million connected home medical monitoring devices globally at the end of 2023. The forecast reaches 140.1 million devices in 2028, with a projected 12.8% compound annual growth rate over the five years to 2028.
The same source reported RPM solution revenue of $40.4 billion in 2023. Revenue is forecast to reach $77.3 billion by the end of 2028, representing a projected 13.9% compound annual growth rate from 2023 to 2028. Device counts and solution revenue are separate measures: one counts connected monitoring devices, while the other describes revenue from RPM solutions.
These figures give two ways to view expansion. Device volume indicates the installed base of connected home monitoring equipment. Revenue indicates the value assigned to RPM solutions over a stated period. Neither figure by itself establishes how many patients used a device, how often data were reviewed, or how many clinical encounters resulted.
The connected-device forecast also differs from Grand View Research’s RPM system-market forecast in definition, source, base year, and projection period. The reported values can be used side by side as market indicators, but they should not be combined into one total.
Reimbursement and billing figures
The BPC Appendix B listed the following payment amounts for selected remote monitoring services:
| Code | Service description | Payment |
|---|---|---|
| CPT 99453 | RPM setup and patient training | $19 |
| CPT 99454 | RPM device supply and data collection | $50 |
| CPT 99457 | First 20 minutes of RPM management | $48 |
| CPT 99458 | Additional 20-minute RPM management increment | $39 |
| CPT 99091 | RPM data interpretation for at least 30 minutes | $54 |
| CPT 98975 | RTM setup and patient training | $19 |
| CPT 98976 | RTM respiratory device supply | $50 |
| CPT 98977 | RTM musculoskeletal device supply | $50 |
| CPT 98980 | First 20 minutes of RTM treatment management | $49 |
| CPT 98981 | Additional 20-minute RTM management increment | $39 |
| CPT 95249 | Patient-provided CGM setup and training | $62 |
| CPT 95250 | Ambulatory CGM setup and sensor placement | $147 |
| CPT 95251 | Ambulatory CGM analysis and interpretation | $35 |
The appendix states that RPM and RTM supply codes were billed only once per 30 days. Under the 2024 Physician Fee Schedule discussion cited in the appendix, those supply codes required at least 16 days of data in a 30-day period. These are billing requirements in the cited discussion, not measures of patient adherence or clinical effectiveness.
The code list also shows that remote monitoring reimbursement includes several service types: setup and training, device supply and data collection, management time, data interpretation, and continuous glucose monitoring services. The payment amounts are code-specific and should not be treated as a standard per-patient RPM price.
What telemonitoring studies measured
The AHRQ Telehealth Technical Brief included 96 telemonitoring studies. Of those studies, 64 were randomized controlled trials and 58 were pooled in the telemonitoring meta-analyses. The evidence base therefore included both pooled and non-pooled studies.
Technology was common across the included research: 88 of 96 studies used computers, tablets, or dedicated devices to collect and transfer patient data. Five of 96 used educational videos to increase patient knowledge. Outcomes were less consistently reported than technology use. Twelve of 96 studies reported adherence outcomes, while 9 of 96 reported satisfaction or acceptance outcomes.
Study duration varied considerably:
- Five of 96 studies assessed telemonitoring over a short period of 7 to 45 days.
- Twenty of 96 studies assessed it over 2 to 4 months.
- Seventy-six of 96 studies lasted 6 to 12 months.
Because the durations and outcomes differed, the count of studies alone does not establish that every telemonitoring intervention had the same intensity, device type, or follow-up schedule.
Clinical outcomes across conditions
In the AHRQ meta-analysis, telemonitoring had a mortality risk ratio of 0.71 compared with usual care. The same analysis found a blood-pressure mean difference of -3.85 mm Hg and a glycated hemoglobin mean difference of -0.33. It found no significant quality-of-life improvement, with a mean difference of 1.45 and P=.07. Hospitalization risk was 1.02 versus usual care.
The findings varied by condition and review. In one COPD review, 5 of 9 trials found no significant mortality difference, while 6 of 9 found fewer hospitalizations. In one heart-failure review, lower all-cause mortality had a risk ratio of 0.62, and fewer heart-failure-related hospitalizations had a risk ratio of 0.75. Six of 9 studies in that heart-failure review found fewer heart-failure-related admissions.
Cardiovascular-disease evidence included a cost finding: in one review, all 9 of 9 analyzed studies found lower direct costs, with reductions ranging from 1.6% to 68.3%. A study in the same review reported 15% lower all-cause hospitalizations.
Respiratory-disease findings also included separate utilization measures. In one review, telehome monitoring lowered hospitalization risk to a risk ratio of 0.81 for severe and very severe COPD. It lowered emergency-department visits to a risk ratio of 0.52.
These outcome measures use different denominators and clinical contexts. A risk ratio below 1 indicates a lower relative risk or event rate for the telemonitoring group in the cited comparison, while a mean difference reports a difference in an outcome scale. The figures should therefore remain attached to their specific disease review and outcome rather than being combined into a single estimate of RPM effectiveness.