HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wants every American using a wearable health device within four years. But is that goal worthwhile — and attainable?
Health system leaders told Becker’s that it’s a deserving outcome that won’t be easy to accomplish.
“Wearables hold tremendous promise — especially when used to empower patients, enrich remote care and enable early intervention, although the value depends heavily on context, accuracy and integration,” said Sunil Dadlani, executive vice president and chief information, digital and cybersecurity officer of Morristown, N.J.-based Atlantic Health System.
Wearables are effective for chronic disease management, nudging patients into making behavioral changes while reducing strain on health systems, he said.
But for healthcare to embrace a wearable-centric strategy, the industry must institute data governance and clinical integration and validation policies, Mr. Dadlani said. “Without this foundational structure, wearable data risks becoming more noise than value.”
“Wearables have the potential to transform healthcare — not by replacing physicians, but by enhancing their ability to deliver personalized, preventive and scalable care,” said Christopher Longhurst, MD, chief clinical and innovation officer of UC San Diego Health. “But we believe that realizing this potential nationally will require payment innovation to match the technological advances we’re already seeing in the field.”
UC San Diego’s Jacobs Center for Health Innovation is working to enroll 10,000 individuals into digital health programs integrated with its EHR, and has already started seeing benefits from over 60 different devices used by patients.
“Whether it’s using glucose monitors for diabetes or AI-powered mental health apps, these tools make it easier for health teams to step in earlier and provide more targeted support, especially for people managing chronic conditions or mental health challenges,” Dr. Longhurst said.
The hypertension and diabetes monitoring program, for instance, uses wearables and smart AI to deliver personalized care, track medication and lifestyle habits, and better manage blood sugar. Meanwhile, a National Institutes of Health-supported project deploys wearables during and after pregnancy to help predict hypertension complications and reduce maternal cardiovascular risks.
“To really make wearables work at scale, we need more than just the tech,” Dr. Longhurst said. “We need better reimbursement models that actually pay providers for the time it takes to review and act on patient-generated data.”
Physicians are already stretched thin, so the new data has to be easy to access, use and filter, as well as secure and private, he said. The Jacobs Center for Health Innovation is piloting ways to address these system-level needs.
“To go beyond these types of pilot programs, we need federal leadership to standardize data practices and incentivize providers through value-based reimbursement tied to digital health outcomes,” Dr. Longhurst said.
Jason Szczuka, chief digital officer of Cincinnati-based Bon Secours Mercy Health, said he strongly supports Mr. Kennedy’s audacious goal because “you can’t improve it if you don’t measure it.”
“Wearables are ideal for the segment of the population that is already committed to improving their health and just need better guidance (with some added indirect accountability forces). Adoption of wearables, including for those that don’t, can also be a useful social determinant of health for providers wanting to better target their population health engagement,” Mr. Szczuka said.
Wearables have a lot of potential when coupled with AI and a specific outcome, such as monitoring heart rhythms or blood oxygen saturation, said Jason Joseph, chief digital and information officer of Corewell Health, headquartered in Grand Rapids and Southfield, Mich.
“However, the ‘generally healthy’ population will benefit from monitoring and guidance only if the consumer is interested in monitoring, tracking and taking action on their own,” he said. “Outside of that self-interest, who will do what with the data and alerts from consumer-grade wearables?
“There is not a broad economic model to support this type of health management for the majority of people. If we can link the wearable to a broader ‘program’ that incentivizes the right behavior and support when necessary, there is probably a lot of upside potential for population health.”
Wearables like continuous glucose monitors already have proven clinical value in structured programs like diabetes management, said Dwight Raum, executive vice president and chief digital information officer of Rochester (N.Y.) Regional Health. But broader use remains limited.
“Widespread adoption could meaningfully improve outcomes, particularly for patients enrolled in disease management programs,” he said. “But significant barriers remain: accuracy, cost, privacy, consistent use, human behavior, and fear of technology. Even with near-universal smartphone adoption, many of the sickest populations still struggle with digital tools.”
The wearables market is also highly fragmented with poor interoperability, as the devices, typically employed for specific conditions, are locked within proprietary data ecosystems that companies might not be apt to share, Mr. Raum said. And the information often isn’t standardized.
“There will continue to be targeted programs where wearables are integral to treatment, and the usual criteria — privacy, security, interoperability, and clinical efficacy — will apply,” Mr. Raum said. “But to truly unlock the potential of a wearable-first health strategy, we need simultaneous revolutions in both the consumer device market and the EHR-informed models that guide clinical decision-making.”
