Vince Kuraitus responds to my previous post, "Impact of Remote Monitoring Still Inconclusive," and provides an impassioned case to move ahead with the deployment of RPM (remote patient monitoring).

Actually, his position is very similar to the physician's presenting at last week's conference on Rapid Response Systems (RRS) in Pittsburgh. Both RPM and RRS are poor subjects for traditional RCTs (randomized controlled trials). As one presenter stated, "the efficacy of system changes cannot be "proven" in a traditional sense." Instead, like Vince, the conference's faculty appealed to common sense suggesting observational studies and looking for biological rationales. Evaluating the cost of adopting RPM is important, as is evaluating the cost of inaction.

In the comments to Vince's blog post Gordon Norman, EVP and Chief Medical Officer of disease management company Alere notes, "appropriate RPM, deployed for the right patients with certain chronic
conditions collecting suitable biometric and other data in
consumer-friendly ways can augment the effectiveness and efficiency of
DM programs." Norman further observes:

Though not yet at “no pain, immediate gain” threshold necessary for
widespread adoption across payors, providers, or even DM community,
today’s RPM is currently an effective and efficient component of
leading population health mgt programs. What to monitor, how to integrate biometric, symptom, other data into
meaningful information and workflows to optimize intervention types,
timing, customization is the key to effective RPM.

Vince also summarizes his own favorite research studies on RPM in his post -  be sure to read the whole thing.