Economic Impact of Digital Musculoskeletal Care Versus In-person Physical Therapy: A US Claims Analysis of Health Care Utilization and Outcomes
A remote digital musculoskeletal program was linked to lower total and musculoskeletal-related health care spending than starting in-person physical therapy in matched insurance claims.
*Retrospective matched cohort (claims) study; Level 2b (OCEBM).
*Retrospective matched cohort (claims) study; Level 2b (OCEBM).
Citation
Pereira AP, Seet AM, Janela D, et al. Economic Impact of Digital Musculoskeletal Care Versus In-person Physical Therapy: A US Claims Analysis of Health Care Utilization and Outcomes. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2026;107:665–675. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2025.09.010
Background
Exercise-based physical therapy is recommended as first-line care for many muscle and joint problems, but access and follow-through can be difficult, which may lead to more imaging or surgery. This study compared real-world costs and service use after starting a digital, home-based program versus in-person physical therapy.
Patients
United States adults (18 years or older) with commercial insurance and a muscle/joint-related index event (March–October 2023) and at least 12 months of claims before and after (matched groups: 2,183 vs 2,183). Excluded: claims suggesting pregnancy/perinatal status, cognitive impairment, or ongoing cancer treatment.
Intervention
Employer-offered remote digital program with guided exercises, education, and behavior-change support, monitored asynchronously by a physical therapist, using a motion-tracking device for exercise feedback.
Control
Initiation of in-person physical therapy, identified by evaluation billing claims.
Outcome
(Primary) Total health care spending and muscle/joint-related spending per person per year; spending components (surgery, imaging, office visits). Intervention group also reported symptom and productivity changes.
Follow-up Period
12 months before vs 12 months after the index event.
Results
| Outcome (post-index) | Savings with digital care (USD per person-year) | 95% confidence interval |
|---|---|---|
| Muscle/joint-related spending (primary) | $2,025.7 | $1,362.0 to $2,689.4 |
| Total health care spending (primary) | $2,369.5 | $1,305.4 to $3,433.7 |
| Surgery spending (driver) | $1,910.5 | $1,271.7 to $2,549.2 |
| Imaging spending (driver) | $47.6 | $29.4 to $65.8 |
| Medical office visit spending (driver) | $54.2 | $13.7 to $94.8 |
The digital group had many more rehabilitation sessions but similar rehabilitation spending. The paper reports fewer surgeries overall in the digital group (counts), and productivity-related savings at program end of $518.1 per participant (self-reported; no control data).
Limitations
Observational design with likely self-selection (motivation/technology comfort), so unmeasured differences may explain some savings. Billing data can be miscoded or incomplete. Clinical outcomes were not available for the in-person group, limiting value-for-money conclusions. Results may not generalize beyond commercially insured, employer-based populations.
Funding
Sword Health; European recovery/resilience project “Responsible AI.” Sponsor-employment and equity conflicts.
Clinical Application
For commercially insured adults with common muscle/joint pain, consider digital-first physical therapy programs to reduce downstream imaging and surgery while supporting home-based rehabilitation.
Journal Club
Discussion questions and an EBM quiz for this paper. How to run a journal club →
Discussion question (1)
In this retrospective matched claims analysis, digital MSK care vs in-person PT was associated with $2025.7 lower annual MSK spending per person and 609 fewer surgeries; given residual confounding/self-selection, how valid and applicable are these findings, and would they change your referral strategy?
EBM quiz (1 question)
1. This study used a retrospective matched claims analysis rather than randomization. Which is the most important limitation when interpreting the association between digital MSK care enrollment and lower annual MSK spending?
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.