Cost Analysis of Remote Cardiac Rehabilitation Compared With Facility-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation for Coronary Artery Disease

Abstract

Remote cardiac rehabilitation (RCR) represents a promising, noninferior alternative to facility-based cardiac rehabilitation (FBCR). The comparable cost of RCR in US populations has yet to be extensively studied. The purpose of this prospective, patient-selected study of traditional FBCR versus a third-party asynchronous RCR platform was to assess whether RCR can be administered at a comparable cost and clinical efficacy to FBCR. Adult insured patients were eligible for enrollment after an admission for a coronary heart disease event. Patients selected either FBCR or Movn RCR, a 12-week telehealth intervention using an app-based platform and internet-capable medical devices. Clinical demographics, intervention adherence, cost-effectiveness, and hospitalizations at 1-year after enrollment were assessed from the Highmark claims database after propensity matching between groups. A total of 260 patients were included and 171 of those eligible (65.8%) received at least 1 cardiac rehabilitation session and half of the patients chose Movn RCR. The propensity matching produced a sample of 41 matched pairs. Movn RCR led to a faster enrollment and higher completion rates (80% vs 50%). The total medical costs were similar between Movn RCR and FBCR, although tended toward cost savings with Movn RCR ($10,574/patient). The cost of cardiac rehabilitation was lower in those enrolled in Movn RCR ($1,377/patient, p=0.002). The all-cause and cardiovascular-related hospitalizations or emergency department visits in the year after enrollment in both groups were similar. In conclusion, this pragmatic study of patients after a coronary heart disease event led to equivalent total medical costs and lower intervention costs for an asynchronous RCR platform than traditional FBCR while maintaining similar clinically important outcomes.