Advocate for Remote Monitoring
Comments due
September 12, 2025
Medicare undervalues remote monitoring of pacemakers and ICDs with CPT Code 93296—paying only about $20 per 90 days despite the real workload being nearly 84 minutes per cycle. Modern Remote Monitoring isn’t just a check—it’s 32 crucial tasks, from urgent alert response to connectivity troubleshooting. That workload is invisible in the numbers.
​
Our Ask to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
​
-
Update technology inputs to reflect current wireless systems.
-
Correct technician assumptions to cardiovascular technicians—not outdated roles.
-
Lay groundwork for fair time-based reimbursement, once independent, society-led data are available.
Why it Matters
​
These changes alone could raise payments by ~50%. That keeps patients connected—and alive—by supporting structured RM programs, reducing disconnections, and preventing avoidable ER visits.
​
Ready to Take Action?
Use the below sample letter as a basis to send your comments to CMS at Regulations.gov. Please add your own language and stories about your practice and patients. The deadline for comments is Friday, September 12, 2025, so make sure to act today!
Sample Letter
Please Copy, Personalize, and Submit before the Sept 12th deadline
To: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Subject: Support Near-Term Reforms to CPT 93296 (Remote Monitoring, Technical Component)
​
I am writing to urge CMS to revise its technical practice expense inputs for CPT Code 93296 to better reflect current clinical reality and improve patient access to life-saving remote monitoring. Technology input should reflect modern wireless hardware/software, not outdated legacy telemetry.
​
The technician assigned should be a cardiovascular technician—trained in heart rhythm device monitoring—not an electrodiagnostic technician. These adjustments alone could increase reimbursement by approximately 50%, without the need for a full revaluation process. Remote monitoring is the Class I standard of care per the 2023 Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) consensus. It involves continuous alert review, connectivity troubleshooting, and urgent event handling—well beyond a one-time interrogation. Yet the current payment structure, based on ~20 minutes per 90 days, fails to capture the full workload (a recent independent study shows ~84 minutes).
​
I urge CMS to support these near-term corrections and work with HRS/HRA to further study direct practice expense inputs to appropriately value 90-day remote device interrogation.
​
Thank you for your consideration.
[Your Name], [Your Credentials/Role]
*[Practice or Institution]
*[City, State]