(This story is from our new Health Tech newsletter. If you’d like to sign up, just click here.)
Many virtual programs used to treat common musculoskeletal problems improve pain and function, while slightly lowering costs, a new report found. And for many people, the tools can work as well as in-person physical therapy.
The findings, published in a report from the Peterson Health Technology Institute on Wednesday, could throw more gasoline on the already hot digital musculoskeletal market. Startups in the space have raised hundreds of millions in venture funding in the past few years. Earlier this week, Sword Health raised another $130 million in sales increasing its valuation to $3 billion.
The new report is Peterson’s second since the nonprofit launched last year to provide independent evaluations of digital health technologies. The first, released in March, raised eyebrows when it concluded that many digital programs for type 2 diabetes don’t produce results that are worth the cost.
Caroline PearsonCaroline Pearson, Peterson’s executive director, told Endpoints News that the organization used the same approach to evaluate diabetes and musculoskeletal tools — but there’s stronger evidence to back up the benefits of digital physical therapy. Plus, while diabetes tools supplement other care, many virtual physical therapy tools have the potential to replace in-person sessions, which makes it easier for them to demonstrate a return on investment, she said.
“This should give a lot of peace of mind to both providers and patients that virtual PT solutions are good options,” she said.
Peterson reviewed evidence for eight of the dominant virtual musculoskeletal tools in the market from companies including DarioHealth, Hinge Health, Kaia Health, Limber Health, Omada Health, RecoveryOne, Sword Health and Vori Health. The analysis was based on a review of published studies, as well as data submitted by the companies.
The findings differed across three categories of solutions. Virtual physical therapy programs — the category most companies fall into — tend to involve a clinician who designs the care plan and oversees the patient’s progress. These tools produce more clinical benefits than no physical therapy, and have health outcomes comparable to in-person physical therapy, according to the report.
Plus, they save money — or at least a little. Peterson estimated that if 25% of in-person physical therapy patients with low back pain switched to these digital programs at a price of $995 a year, it would save $4.4 million across one million insured patients.
Other virtual programs including Dario and Kaia that have limited clinician involvement fared worse in the analysis. They’re better than nothing, but they’re unlikely to be good replacements for in-person physical therapy, the report found.
The final category of tools, which includes Limber, uses remote monitoring technology such as motion sensors to allow physical therapists to support patients between in-person sessions. There’s some evidence (but not a lot) that this type of tool provides better clinical outcomes than in-person physical therapy alone. But those methods drive up healthcare spending, even after accounting for potential savings from avoided care, according to the analysis.
For the most part, digital health companies in the space were thrilled with the report’s findings, which they said confirmed the value of their tools. But Kaia, one of the app-based solutions, pushed back on the conclusions, arguing its clinical studies show that its outcomes are comparable or better than in-person care. Omada, which took issue with Peterson’s report on diabetes programs, questioned the methodology behind the new analysis and said it overlooks substantial differences between types of physical therapy solutions.