For rural practices, funding a connected-care program involves more than purchasing devices or software. Someone needs to help patients get started, follow up between visits, and keep the operation running after the initial investment. Rural Health Transformation Program funding can support certain RPM and care-coordination initiatives, but eligibility depends on the state’s approved approach, the specific funding opportunity, and the proposed use of funds. The program’s approved uses include chronic disease management, technology-enabled care, and remote monitoring, but those priorities do not automatically make a practice or vendor eligible for payment.
Remote patient monitoring (RPM) involves collecting and reviewing health data transmitted by connected devices, such as blood pressure readings. Care coordination includes follow-up, referral support, and communication among patients and their care teams. The two can work together when information from monitoring leads to outreach, clinical review, or another care action.
At 1bios, our approach starts with a practical idea: You already have the patients. We bring the operation. For a practice exploring RHTP funding, that means considering the team and workflows needed to deliver care alongside the initial technology investment. Funding fit and operating fit are separate questions, and both need clear answers before a program launches.
The Rural Health Transformation Program, often called RHTP or the RHT Program, provides $50 billion in federal funding allocated over fiscal years 2026 through 2030. States are the direct federal award recipients, rather than individual physician practices. For a practice, the starting point is its state’s program and the opportunities available through that program.
A state’s broad transformation plan is useful context, but it is not the same as an application invitation or an approved project budget. Before committing resources, find the relevant state notice and identify the organization administering it. Ask whether your practice would participate as an applicant, a project partner, a contractor, or a provider serving patients through another organization’s initiative.
RPM and care coordination can fit an RHTP initiative when they address an approved rural-care need and the proposed expenses meet the funding requirements. A useful proposal connects the service to a specific access or care-delivery problem. It explains who will receive support, what will change, and how the work will be carried out.
There are concrete state examples of this connection. South Carolina’s Connections to Care initiative identifies remote patient monitoring, telehealth, electronic health records, and a statewide resource database as tools for improving coordination and access. That demonstrates a state-level path for this work, but it does not establish eligibility for a different state or mean that an application window remains open.
Care coordination also needs a more precise description than its name alone provides. A project might involve following up after visits, helping patients navigate referrals, addressing barriers to participation, or connecting monitoring findings with the treating clinician. Describe those activities individually so the funding administrator can evaluate the proposed scope and costs.
Start with the actual funding opportunity and its current instructions. A vendor’s statement that its services align with RHTP goals is not an award determination. Obtain answers from the administering organization and keep them with the project’s planning records.
Ask about individual expenses rather than whether an entire “RPM package” qualifies. A bundled price may combine technology, implementation, clinical services, and administrative work that require different treatment. Have the proposed scope broken into understandable components before asking the administrator to review it.
RHTP funding should not be treated as another payer for services already reimbursable by insurance. CMS specifies that funding cannot replace or modify payment for clinical services that could be reimbursed through insurance or other health coverage. It also restricts duplication and replacement of existing funding, so practices need to distinguish approved transformation expenses from ongoing billable care.
Before launch, ask the project administrator and billing team to review how expenses and services will be recorded. Identify the documentation needed to show which funding source supports each activity. A project budget should make that separation visible instead of assuming that an unpaid claim can be shifted to the award.
Care coordination is also broader than any single billing service. Calling an activity care coordination does not establish that it qualifies as Chronic Care Management, Principal Care Management, or another reimbursable service. If your sustainability plan relies on reimbursement, verify the current requirements for the service, payer, practitioner, and practice setting.
Funding can help a practice begin a project, but it does not assign responsibility for the daily work. The operating plan should follow the patient from identification through enrollment, participation, clinical follow-up, and documentation. Each handoff needs a person or team responsible for completing it.
Define which patients the clinical team intends to serve and how that population fits the project’s purpose. Assign responsibility for outreach, explaining participation, documenting required consent, and following up with patients who do not respond. Plan for language, accessibility, caregiver involvement, and the questions patients may have about costs or contact from an outside team.
For RPM, decide who will coordinate delivery, help patients activate devices, and confirm that readings reach the intended system. Test connectivity and usability in the communities the project will serve rather than assuming that equipment will work equally well in every home. Someone also needs to investigate missing readings and resolve technical problems after enrollment.
Assign responsibility for reviewing information, contacting patients, and routing concerns to the appropriate clinician. Specify how the receiving team acknowledges a handoff and follows through when a referral, medication question, or change in symptoms needs attention. Confirm service hours and backup arrangements so patients and staff understand what support is available.
Clinical records, billing support, and award reporting may require different information. Identify where each record will live, who checks its completeness, and how the practice will obtain information from any partner. Choose measures that help the team manage the operation while also meeting the project’s reporting requirements.
The funding opportunity and the operating model need to fit together. A practice may have strong clinical capacity but need help with enrollment or device logistics, while another may need broader operational support. Evaluate internal, hybrid, and managed approaches against the same list of responsibilities and the award’s contracting requirements.
An internal model can fit a practice with available staff, management capacity, and dependable backup coverage. It gives the practice direct control over day-to-day work. The budget still needs to account for training, supervision, technology, administration, and the work employees would otherwise perform.
A hybrid model can address a defined gap while keeping selected functions inside the practice. For example, a partner might support onboarding and technical troubleshooting while practice staff retain clinical review. The division should be specific enough that both teams know who owns unresolved issues.
A managed model can provide a broader operating scope when the practice lacks capacity to build every function itself. The practice still needs clinical direction, provider responses, oversight, and access to records. Confirm the arrangement’s fit with award terms and current payer requirements rather than assuming that funding approval also establishes billing eligibility.
For a closer comparison, see RPM software vs. fully managed RPM and in-house vs. outsourced CCM. These decisions involve different workflows, so an RPM staffing plan should not automatically be reused for CCM. The partner’s scope and the practice’s retained work should reflect the services actually being delivered.
Consider a practice that wants to extend monitoring and care coordination to patients in a community it has struggled to reach consistently. Its proposed project includes onboarding support, connected devices, staff training, and a defined follow-up workflow. Before purchasing anything, the practice asks the state administrator which parts of that expansion fit the initiative and how each expense should be allocated.
CMS illustrates this distinction through an example of expanding a chronic disease management program into additional counties: funding may support qualifying new populations, activities, and milestones, while existing program costs remain with their original funding sources. That example is not blanket approval for a practice’s proposal. The state opportunity and approved budget still govern the project.
The operational test comes when a newly enrolled patient stops transmitting readings. Someone must contact the patient, investigate the gap, address technical issues, and involve the clinician if the conversation identifies a care concern. The project needs a plan for performing that work during the award and paying for it afterward.
Before launching, identify who will perform the recurring work, what it will cost, and which verified funding sources will support it after the award ends. Separate implementation work from recurring expenses such as staffing, connectivity, software, device replacement, supervision, and administration. CMS also expects initiatives to address sustainability beyond the program period.
For each continuing expense, identify a realistic funding source and the assumptions behind it. Potential sources to evaluate include applicable reimbursement, an executed value-based arrangement, committed organizational support, or another documented funding source. Do not count anticipated collections or a future partnership as committed revenue.
The number of devices purchased will not tell you how many patients remain engaged or how much staff time the program requires. Include enrollment follow-up, unsuccessful contact attempts, technical support, clinical review, documentation, and management in the operating budget. Revisit those assumptions using actual project experience before expanding enrollment.
Agree on when the organization will review costs, participation, operational performance, and available ongoing funding. Define who decides whether to continue, adjust, expand, or wind down the program. If services must change, plan for patient communication, clinical handoffs, records access, and device responsibilities before the funding runs out.
1bios brings a connected-care operating perspective to the build-versus-partner decision. Its RPM offering includes enrollment support, device logistics, technology, care-team support, and billing assistance. A practice exploring an RHTP-supported project should compare its operational needs with a clearly defined service scope.
Start that discussion with your intended patient population, existing staff capacity, and the work your team needs help completing. Define what the practice will retain, what a partner would perform, and what the ongoing arrangement would cost. Any use of RHTP funds for those services must be reviewed under the specific state opportunity and award terms.
RHTP questions often combine funding eligibility with decisions about delivering patient care. Those decisions are related, but they require different evidence. Use the state’s official instructions for funding questions and a documented operating plan for implementation.
Under the program’s eligibility requirements, the direct federal awards are for states. A practice should look for participation opportunities through its state’s program or an organization administering a relevant initiative. Confirm the application route and eligible entity types in the specific notice.
A vendor’s involvement does not establish that a practice or proposed expense qualifies. Ask the administering organization to evaluate the project scope, budget, and proposed vendor arrangement. Obtain that determination before making commitments that depend on funding.
CMS distinguishes qualifying expansion from replacing an existing program’s funding. A proposal should identify the new population, activity, or milestone and separate its costs from existing operations. Confirm the proposed allocation with the state administrator.
Check the current notices for your state and the initiative relevant to your project. A past federal application deadline for states does not tell you whether a provider opportunity is open today. Ask the administrator about current opportunities, partner participation, and any announced future rounds.
Prepare a description of the patients you intend to serve, the state opportunity you are considering, and your current staffing and technology. Identify the functions you want to retain and the gaps you need help addressing. Bring a preliminary recurring-cost budget so the discussion covers sustainability as well as launch.