Remote Therapeutic Monitoring in Physitrack and Raintree

TL;DR

• RTM requires one connected operating model. Physitrack is an AI-first, all-in-one patient engagement and remote care platform that handles enrollment, activity, clinician time, and billing evidence. Its integration with strategic partner Raintree supports SSO, HEP assignment, telehealth launch, and chart write-back.
• CPT codes 98975, 98985, 98977, 98979, 98980, and 98981 depend on documented setup, monitored days, management time, and real-time patient interaction.
• A native Raintree RTM view is an unbuilt design direction. The proposed design covers chart-based enrollment and monitoring status, separate activity and clinician-time capture, chart-filed billing evidence, clinician-confirmed charges, and network reporting.
• Enterprise Raintree groups can contact Physitrack to help define the model without a gated download or formal commitment.

RTM as an operating model, not a billing feature

RTM works as an operating model when every claim can be traced through the care record. Patient activity supports monitored-day counts. Clinician records support management time and required interactions, while billing evidence connects those records to the proposed CPT code. Clinicians also need current activity data to review progress and adjust care when appropriate.

Disconnected point solutions weaken that record. A patient may complete qualifying activities in one platform while the clinician tracks review time elsewhere. If billing staff later reconstructs eligibility from memory or spreadsheets, the chart may not clearly support the selected code. Delayed review also reduces the clinical usefulness of activity and symptom data.

Today, Physitrack provides RTM within its AI-first, all-in-one patient engagement and remote care platform. It handles enrollment, automatically logs qualifying patient activity, captures clinician time, and assembles billing evidence for clinician review. The RTM workspace currently operates outside the Raintree chart.

Raintree supports the surrounding clinical workflow through single sign-on, HEP assignment, and telehealth launch. The existing integration also writes program PDFs and relevant chart data back to Raintree. A practice must connect these responsibilities through clear operating procedures so clinicians and billing staff work from consistent records.

A native Raintree RTM view remains an unbuilt design direction developed around the partners’ shared operating model. Until that model exists inside the chart, practices should define who reviews activity, who records time, and how billing evidence reaches the patient record.

Why RTM breaks down without a connected workflow

Disconnected records can turn valid RTM work into a claim that is difficult to support. A patient may complete qualifying activities in PhysiApp while the physical therapist works primarily in Raintree. If the clinician cannot see current threshold status during chart review, the clinician may miss a needed follow-up or make a decision using incomplete information.

Clinician time creates a second point of failure. A physical therapist may record review minutes in one tool and document a real-time patient interaction in another. Billing staff must then determine whether the records refer to the same episode and reporting month. Small differences in dates, patient status, or recorded minutes can leave the claim without a clear evidence trail.

Retrospective billing adds work and uncertainty. At month-end, billing staff may have to compare activity logs, chart notes, and clinician entries before proposing a code. When the records do not agree, the practice must hold the claim, omit qualifying work, or submit documentation that may be harder to defend during review.

Multi-site operations magnify these problems because each clinic can develop its own workaround. One location may review thresholds weekly, while another waits until month-end. Operations leaders then struggle to compare performance because sites use different review routines and documentation standards.

A workable RTM model gives each step a clear owner and keeps the supporting record connected to the episode of care. Without that connection, clinicians spend time reconstructing work they already performed, and billing staff must make decisions from records assembled after the fact.

RTM CPT codes and the rules that make them defensible

Defensible RTM billing depends on evidence that matches each CPT code’s threshold. Physitrack captures qualifying patient activity and clinician time, while the current Raintree integration supports the surrounding chart workflow. Practices must use operating procedures to ensure clinicians and billing staff review consistent records.

• CPT 98975 covers initial setup and patient education. A practice may report it once per episode of care when the patient receives the device or software setup and instruction needed to participate.
• CPT 98985 covers device supply when a patient records activity on 2 to 15 days within a 30-day period. The activity record must support the number of monitored days associated with the claim.
• CPT 98977 covers device supply for musculoskeletal monitoring when a patient records activity on at least 16 days within 30 days. A connected workflow lets staff see when the patient crosses that threshold without reconstructing activity after the month closes.
• CPT 98979 covers 10 to 19 minutes of treatment management during the month. The time record must track the clinician’s qualifying management work rather than the time the patient spends completing exercises.
• CPT 98980 begins when treatment management reaches 20 minutes during the month. CPT 98981 covers each additional 20 minutes of qualifying management time.

A monitored day requires the patient to complete at least one activity inside the app. Opening a link or viewing a program PDF does not qualify. Consuming educational material inside the app can qualify when that material forms part of the plan of care. Activity capture and chart visibility therefore need to agree on what the patient did and when the patient did it.

The treatment management codes also require at least one real-time interaction with the patient during the month. Automated messages, passive data review, and recorded patient activity do not replace that interaction. The billing record should preserve the interaction alongside the clinician’s accumulated management time.

Software can calculate thresholds and assemble supporting evidence, but a licensed clinician should confirm the applicable code. Practices should also apply payer-specific requirements and review their approach with their billing and compliance teams. A connected Physitrack and Raintree workflow supports that review by keeping patient activity, clinician work, chart documentation, and billing evidence tied to the same episode of care.

What a native Raintree RTM design could do

The current Physitrack and Raintree integration does not include the native RTM view described below. The model is a design direction shared by Physitrack and strategic partner Raintree, and these capabilities are not shipped or available for purchase today.

Chart-native enrollment with clinician approval

A native integration would let a clinician start RTM enrollment from the Raintree chart. The software could carry patient and episode details into Physitrack, while the clinician would confirm eligibility, provide education, and approve enrollment. Clinician approval would remain part of the record rather than becoming an automated administrative step.

Monitoring status inside the chart

The intended view would show RTM progress where clinicians already review the patient record. A clinician could see enrolled status, qualifying monitored days, recorded management time, and whether a real-time interaction has occurred during the month. These indicators would support clinical and billing review without treating a threshold as an automatic billing decision.

Separate records for patient activity and clinician time

The proposed workflow would record qualifying patient activity separately from clinician management time. A completed in-app activity could count toward monitored days, while clinician review and communication would contribute to management time. Keeping those records separate would help prevent patient engagement data from being mistaken for clinician work.

Billing evidence filed to the chart

The proposed design would write structured RTM evidence directly to the Raintree chart. The record could include qualifying activity dates, documented clinician time, patient interactions, and enrollment details. Billing staff could review the supporting record without reconstructing the month across exports or separate systems.

Clinician-confirmed charge capture

The proposed native workflow could surface a potentially applicable code when the documented activity meets the relevant criteria. A licensed clinician would always review the evidence and confirm the code before charge capture. The software would organize the record and surface possible codes, but it would not make autonomous clinical or billing decisions.

Network-level reporting

Multi-site operators need a consistent view across locations without removing local clinical oversight. The intended reporting layer would roll up enrollment, monitored activity, clinician review, and confirmed charge information across the network. Operations leaders could identify workflow variation by clinic, while each licensed clinician would retain responsibility for reviewing and confirming the patient-level record.

Proposed CMS CY2027 changes and the case for practice-native RTM

CMS has proposed several RTM policy changes for CY2027, but none are final. Practices should confirm the final rules with their billing and compliance advisers before changing patient eligibility, staffing, documentation, or billing procedures.

The proposals would narrow RTM eligibility to established patients and require a separately reportable initiating visit. CMS has also proposed requiring paid RTM services to be performed by clinical staff employed by the billing practice rather than outside contractors. Another proposal would consolidate 17 existing RPM and RTM CPT codes into four HCPCS G-codes.

The employment proposal creates the clearest operational implication. If CMS adopts it, vendor-employed staff may no longer qualify to perform paid RTM work on behalf of a practice. A service that depends on outsourced monitoring could then require new staffing, supervision, and documentation arrangements.

A practice-native model reduces that exposure by keeping monitoring with practice-employed clinical staff. Software can track qualifying activity, assemble evidence, and suggest the applicable code, but a licensed clinician confirms the work and billing decision. The proposed native Physitrack and Raintree design reflects that practice-led model.

The proposed G-code consolidation could also change how practices define workflows and report services. Practices should avoid hard-coding current CPT assumptions into disconnected tools. A connected workflow can adapt its code logic while preserving the underlying patient activity, clinician time, interaction records, and clinical approval needed to support a claim.

Shape the native Raintree RTM model with Physitrack

Enterprise Raintree groups can discuss the proposed native RTM operating model with Physitrack while it remains a design direction. Input from clinical, operations, billing, and compliance leaders can shape how clinicians approve enrollment and how billing teams review evidence across multiple sites.

There is no gated download or formal commitment. See Physitrack in action and discuss how an AI-first, all-in-one patient engagement and remote care platform can support your practice’s current staffing, chart, and billing workflows.

A defensible RTM operating model connects patient activity, clinician review, and billing evidence from the outset. Retrofitting those connections later can create manual work and weaker documentation.

FAQ

What works today, and what remains in design?

Today, Physitrack provides RTM through its AI-first, all-in-one patient engagement and remote care platform, outside the Raintree chart. It supports enrollment, qualifying activity capture, clinician-time tracking, and billing evidence. The current Raintree integration supports single sign-on, HEP assignment, telehealth launch, and chart write-back. A native RTM view that could bring enrollment, monitoring status, evidence, clinician-confirmed charges, and network reporting into the chart remains an unbuilt design direction.

Who performs the monitoring and confirms billing?

The intended operating model uses the practice’s own clinicians to review patient activity and provide treatment management. Physitrack automatically logs qualifying activity and records clinician time, while a licensed clinician reviews the evidence and confirms any billing code. Clinical confirmation keeps the practice responsible for billing decisions and supports a defensible record.

What happens when a patient cannot use the app?

A monitored day requires the patient to complete at least one activity in the app. If a patient cannot use the app, the clinic should choose another suitable care pathway and must not count link or PDF access as monitored activity. Plan-of-Care educational material consumed inside the app can count, which gives clinicians another qualifying activity option when appropriate.