Curie Brief
Turn on cookies to sign in
Signing in saves your progress to your Curie account. We can only do that with cookies on — turn them on to continue.
News
A new report from the Peterson Health Technology Institute (PHTI) found that virtual chronic kidney disease (CKD) management programs show no consistent evidence of slowing disease progression or cutting healthcare costs. The analysis covered eight major virtual CKD companies and over 5,400 studies. Kidney care companies fired back, disputing both the findings and how their services were classified.
A sweeping new report from the Peterson Health Technology Institute (PHTI) has delivered a tough verdict on virtual chronic kidney disease (CKD) management: these programs aren't meaningfully slowing disease progression or reducing healthcare spending. PHTI evaluated eight major virtual CKD companies — including DaVita, Evergreen Nephrology, Monogram Health, and Strive Health — alongside more than 5,400 research articles. The conclusion? Limited clinical impact and negligible cost savings.
The one bright spot: virtual CKD programs do appear to improve transitions to dialysis, helping more patients start treatment in a planned outpatient setting rather than in crisis. But that benefit only reaches about 1 in every 1,000 CKD patients — a modest win in a field with enormous stakes.
The companies named in the report pushed back, with many arguing PHTI mischaracterized their models as "virtual solutions" and overlooked broader clinical outcomes. Several pointed to strong results under CMS's Kidney Care Choices (KCC) Model as evidence of real-world impact.
By the Numbers:
Why it matters: With billions of dollars flowing into virtual kidney care, this report raises urgent questions about whether value-based CKD programs are delivering on their promise — and whether payment models need a fundamental redesign to drive real outcomes.
