The US Gov’t Plans to Push Wearables. What Will That Mean for Healthcare? 

By Ryan Neely, Ph.D. 

Last week, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the US Department of Health and Human Services will embark on “one of the biggest” campaigns in its history to encourage Americans to adopt wearable devices – with the stated vision of equipping every American with a wearable device over the next four years.  

In many ways, this aligns with the administration’s focus on proactive and preventative health initiatives. Wearable devices can be part of a broader strategy of engaging individuals with their own health outcomes, promoting behavioral change that can ultimately prevent disease¹. Today, roughly one third of US adults at least own a wearable device to track their health or fitness². However, an official campaign to drive wearable use raises questions about how the economics, healthcare integration, and oversight of these devices might change in the next several years. And maybe most importantly – what will happen with all of that data? 

Who Pays? 

Consumers and wearable device makers alike are likely wondering if this campaign will include government subsidies for all or some of the cost of wearable devices. It seems unlikely that we’ll be able to order free FitBits like we did with COVID tests during the pandemic. However, it seems feasible that HHS could incentivize wearable adoption through Medicare by offering premium discounts tied to certain health metrics (such as walking 10,000 steps per day). We’ve already seen similar incentive plans offered by private insurance both in the US and UK. However, verification could be challenging in many cases (for example, strapping your FitBit to your dog) – there’s also a possibility that direct hardware or subscription discounts could be on the table, perhaps through a tax write-off. In any case, it’s hard to imagine widespread adoption without some kind of financial incentive.  

Pressure on Providers and Device Makers to Integrate 

Many doctors we talk to already field requests from patients to review data collected by consumer wearable devices. However, most providers report reluctance to assimilate wearable data into clinical practice, and not without reason. Healthcare providers report feeling overwhelmed by the sheer volume of data available, which is compounded by a lack of trust in the accuracy of these devices, which are often not validated for clinical use³. Non-existent integration with electronic health records (EHRs) is also a major barrier. If HHS begins promoting the use of wearable devices, we could see an acceleration of integration between wearables and EHR systems, with the aim of making this data available to providers in a healthcare-native format.  

Greater Scrutiny on Device Makers 

Integration with EHRs is only one piece of the puzzle, however. Most wearable devices are built for consumer, not clinical use – meaning that they aren’t held to the same standards of accuracy and precision used to evaluate diagnostic devices. Proliferation of wearable monitors could increase healthcare utilization or even endanger a user’s health in the case of false positives or negatives, respectively. There is a massive opportunity for wearables to move beyond fitness tracking and into a primary role in preventative medicine – but there will need to be a commensurate shift in the quality and reliability of data collected by these devices. At Skribe, data quality is the core of our thesis – we and other device makers are already leveraging novel technologies to meet these higher standards.  

Unprecedented Opportunity for Data Collection 

Last but certainly not least is the data. If the advances discussed above come true – massive adoption of wearable devices coupled with data integration and improvements in accuracy – there is a huge opportunity for an unprecedented treasure trove of longitudinal health data. Combining behavioral patterns, physiological metrics, pharmacology, and health outcomes on such a scale could yield incredible insights – not to mention the fact that we now have the AI horsepower to make sense of it all. Suddenly, it becomes possible to identify new uses for existing drugs, run distributed clinical trials, and track population health risks in real time. Certainly, we’ll need to make sure our privacy standards are up to the task (maybe HIPAA will need a refresh). But, with the right approach, the next several years could see a revolution in how Americans track and measure their health.  

References Cited 

1. Patel, M.S., Asch, D.A. and Volpp, K.G., 2015. Wearable devices as facilitators, not drivers, of health behavior change. Jama, 313(5), pp.459-460. 

2. Dhingra, L.S., Aminorroaya, A., Oikonomou, E.K., Nargesi, A.A., Wilson, F.P., Krumholz, H.M. and Khera, R., 2023. Use of wearable devices in individuals with or at risk for cardiovascular disease in the US, 2019 to 2020. JAMA Network Open, 6(6), pp.e2316634-e2316634. 

3. Serrano, L.P., Maita, K.C., Avila, F.R., Torres-Guzman, R.A., Garcia, J.P., Eldaly, A.S., Haider, C.R., Felton, C.L., Paulson, M.R., Maniaci, M.J. and Forte, A.J., 2023. Benefits and challenges of remote patient monitoring as perceived by health care practitioners: a systematic review. The Permanente Journal, 27(4), p.100.