Best Cardiac Rehab Treatment 2026: Top Care Models

Cardiac rehabilitation is a Class I recommendation from the AHA/ACC for patients following acute coronary syndrome, coronary revascularization, valve repair or replacement, heart failure, and heart transplant (Thomas et al., 2019). Yet national utilization remains stubbornly low — fewer than one in four eligible patients participate (Ades et al., 2017; Ritchey et al., 2020).

For health plan leaders, provider administrators, and cardiologists, the core question is which delivery model — or combination of models — best matches the clinical needs, access realities, and financial structures of your patient population.

This guide provides an evidence-based comparison of all four cardiac rehab delivery models — with sourced outcome data, cost considerations, a patient-selection decision framework, and operational trade-offs for payer and provider decision-makers.

A note on evidence and definitions: The strength and maturity of evidence varies across delivery models. Center-based CR has decades of large-scale trial data. Home-based CR is supported by a robust Cochrane review. Virtual and hybrid models have a growing but more recent evidence base, drawn primarily from systematic reviews with heterogeneous study designs and, in some cases, single-program evaluations. Terminology also overlaps in the literature: some studies classify technology-supported home-based programs as “virtual” or “telerehabilitation,” while others use “home-based” to describe unsupervised exercise with periodic phone check-ins. Where studies blur these categories, we note the distinction. Where certainty is limited, we say so.

Key Facts About Cardiac Rehab

In This Article:

• Cardiac rehab reduces cardiovascular mortality by 20–26% and rehospitalization by 25–31% (Dalal et al., 2015; Anderson et al., 2016).
• Fewer than 24% of eligible patients participate nationally (Ritchey et al., 2020).
• A 2017 Cochrane review found home-based CR achieves comparable clinical outcomes to center-based programs across 23 trials (Anderson et al., 2017). Subsequent systematic reviews of telehealth-based CR report similar functional improvements, though with more heterogeneous study designs (Ramachandran et al., 2022).
• CMS expanded coverage for virtual CR services through the 2025 Physician Fee Schedule rule, primarily through remote physiologic monitoring and telehealth visit codes. Commercial payer adoption varies by market and contract.
• The AACVPR published updated hybrid and virtual program standards in 2023, providing clearer accreditation pathways.
• Model selection should weigh patient acuity, geography, access barriers, evidence maturity, completion economics, and value-based care goals.

Why Cardiac Rehab Delivery Model Selection Matters Now

Systematic reviews demonstrate a 20–26% reduction in cardiovascular mortality and a 25–31% reduction in hospital readmissions among CR participants versus usual care (Dalal et al., 2015; Anderson et al., 2016). The AHA, ACC, and AACVPR jointly recommend CR as a standard of care following qualifying cardiac events (Thomas et al., 2019).

Despite this evidence base, CDC analyses have documented national CR participation rates below 24% of eligible patients (Ritchey et al., 2020). Among women, racial and ethnic minorities, rural populations, and older adults, participation is even lower (Supervia et al., 2019). The gap is not a clinical knowledge problem — it is a delivery and access problem:

• Geographic access: Many counties lack a certified CR facility, with rural patients facing the most severe shortages (Ades et al., 2017).
• Scheduling and transportation: Up to 36 sessions over 12 weeks during business hours creates conflicts with work and caregiving.
• Referral attrition: Approximately half of referred patients never attend a first session, driven by logistical barriers and delayed intake (Ades et al., 2017).
• Capacity constraints: Many center-based programs operate near capacity, limiting additional referral absorption.

Several developments have reshaped the landscape heading into 2026. CMS expanded telehealth and virtual CR coverage pathways through the 2025 Physician Fee Schedule rule, primarily via remote physiologic monitoring codes (CPT 99453–99458) and telehealth visit codes — though these do not replicate the session-based reimbursement structure of traditional center-based CR. The AACVPR updated its program standards in 2023 to include accreditation guidance for hybrid and virtual models. A growing body of prospective data — including multi-study reviews by Ramachandran et al. (2022) and Frederix et al. (2015) — has strengthened the evidence supporting non-center-based delivery, while also highlighting the need for larger confirmatory trials. These changes give decision-makers a clearer policy and clinical foundation for choosing among virtual cardiac rehab, home-based cardiac rehab, and hybrid models.

{{get-started}}

The Four Cardiac Rehab Delivery Models

1. Center-Based Cardiac Rehab

Patients attend a certified outpatient facility two to three times per week for 12 weeks (up to 36 sessions). Each session includes ECG-monitored exercise, education, nutritional counseling, and psychosocial support under multidisciplinary clinical supervision.

Strengths: Established CMS reimbursement pathway with well-defined billing codes (CPT 93797/93798). Continuous ECG telemetry during exercise. Social support from group-based sessions — a factor patients frequently cite as a motivator for continued attendance. The deepest evidence base: decades of outcome data supporting mortality and readmission reduction (Dalal et al., 2015).

Limitations: Geographic reach limited to facility proximity. Reported completion rates in the literature fall between 25–40% of enrolled patients (Ades et al., 2017). Scheduling rigidity, fixed facility costs, and disproportionate access barriers for women, older adults, rural, and underserved populations further limit real-world utilization (Supervia et al., 2019). Patient satisfaction surveys consistently identify travel burden and scheduling inflexibility as the most common reasons for dropout.

2. Home-Based Cardiac Rehab

Core CR components — exercise training, risk factor education, and behavioral counseling — are delivered in the patient’s home, coordinated through periodic phone or telehealth check-ins with a clinical team. Patients follow structured exercise prescriptions independently between contacts. In the literature, “home-based” encompasses a wide range of designs — from mailed exercise booklets with monthly phone calls to structured telehealth programs with wearable monitoring. This variability makes pooled completion and outcome data harder to interpret at the model level.

Strengths: Eliminates transportation and scheduling barriers. The 2017 Cochrane review (Anderson et al.) found no significant difference in mortality, exercise capacity, or quality of life between home-based and center-based CR across 23 trials and over 2,500 patients. Published completion rates generally range from 40–60% when clinical follow-up is structured (Anderson et al., 2017). Patients in home-based programs report higher satisfaction with scheduling flexibility and lower perceived burden compared to center-based attendees.

Limitations: Less structured monitoring than center-based or virtual programs. Inconsistent implementation standards across programs. Limited real-time clinical oversight during exercise. Billing pathways vary significantly by payer, with no standardized CPT codes for many home-based components.

3. Virtual Cardiac Rehab

Virtual CR delivers all Phase II components through a technology-enabled platform — live video sessions with clinical exercise physiologists, remote physiologic monitoring (RPM) via wearable devices, digital education modules, and real-time communication with a care team. Unlike some home-based programs classified as “telerehabilitation” in the literature, fully virtual CR programs typically provide structured, synchronous clinical sessions rather than periodic check-ins alone.

Strengths: Combines the clinical structure of center-based CR with home-based accessibility. Real-time monitoring through connected devices (heart rate, blood pressure, weight, activity). Structured live clinical sessions. Expanding CMS reimbursement pathways through RPM and telehealth visit codes, plus select commercial contracts — though reimbursement structures differ from traditional session-based billing and vary by payer. Geographic scalability without facility constraints. Data-driven population health reporting through aggregated RPM dashboards. Two systematic reviews — Ramachandran et al. (2022) analyzing telehealth-based CR and Frederix et al. (2015) covering 11 cardiac telerehabilitation trials — found comparable improvements in functional capacity and quality of life versus center-based programs. Individual structured virtual CR programs have reported completion rates between 70–85%, though these figures come from single-program evaluations and may reflect motivated enrollment or program-specific design advantages rather than population-representative norms.

Limitations: Requires patient access to broadband internet and a connected device. Higher-acuity patients with complex hemodynamic instability may need in-person supervision initially. The evidence base is newer and less extensive than center-based CR, with fewer large-scale RCTs and limited multi-site replication of high completion rates. Batalik et al. (2021), in a systematic review of remotely monitored telerehabilitation, noted that while outcomes were encouraging, study heterogeneity and small sample sizes limit the strength of pooled conclusions.

4. Hybrid Cardiac Rehab

Hybrid models combine center-based and virtual or home-based delivery. A common approach begins with in-person sessions (e.g., the first 4–6 for risk stratification, exercise testing, and prescription) followed by virtual or home-based continuation for the remaining sessions.

Strengths: In-person initiation supports baseline assessment, builds patient confidence, and allows direct observation for higher-acuity patients. Virtual continuation may improve completion by reducing later-phase logistical barriers. Aligns with updated AACVPR standards that support blended delivery models. Integrates with existing center-based infrastructure.

Limitations: More operationally complex — requires coordination between in-person and virtual delivery systems. Reimbursement models for split-modality programs are still evolving and not consistently defined across payers. The evidence base for hybrid-specific outcomes is the thinnest of the four models, with most data coming from early pilot programs and feasibility studies rather than controlled trials. Not all center-based programs have the technology infrastructure to support a virtual extension.

Side-by-Side Comparison of Cardiac Rehab Delivery Models

Clinical Outcomes, Adherence, and Completion

The central question for any CR delivery model is whether it achieves outcomes comparable to the center-based reference standard — and whether patients actually complete it.

Mortality and Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE): All four models, when delivered with guideline-aligned components, are associated with significant reductions in cardiovascular mortality versus no rehabilitation. The 2017 Cochrane review (Anderson et al.) found no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality, exercise capacity, or quality of life between home-based and center-based CR across 23 trials. A 2022 systematic review of telehealth-based CR (Ramachandran et al.) reported comparable functional and quality-of-life improvements, though the authors noted heterogeneity across included studies — many of which blended home-based and technology-supported designs — and called for larger confirmatory trials. Frederix et al. (2015), in a meta-analysis of 11 telerehabilitation trials, found significant improvements in exercise capacity but likewise highlighted variability in intervention design and outcome measurement. No head-to-head mortality trials comparing fully virtual CR to center-based CR have been published to date.

Functional Capacity: Improvements in 6-minute walk distance, peak VO₂, and self-reported functional status are documented across all four models. Virtual programs with structured cardiac rehab exercises and live clinical supervision report functional gains consistent with center-based benchmarks in the systematic reviews cited above, though direct RCTs between virtual and center-based delivery remain limited.

Rehospitalization: CR participation is associated with a 25–31% reduction in cardiac rehospitalization (Anderson et al., 2016). Frederix et al. (2015) found a significant reduction in cardiovascular rehospitalization in the telerehabilitation group. Broader multi-site data on rehospitalization outcomes for virtual CR are still accumulating, with several prospective studies expected to report through 2027.

Completion — the decisive variable: Nationally, fewer than 24% of eligible patients begin CR (Ritchey et al., 2020). Among center-based enrollees, only 25–40% complete all 36 sessions (Ades et al., 2017). Home-based programs report 40–60% completion when supported by structured clinical follow-up (Anderson et al., 2017). Structured virtual programs with live clinical sessions and remote monitoring have reported completion rates of 70–85% in individual program evaluations — but these figures have not yet been replicated in large multi-site trials and may reflect program-specific engagement design, patient selection, or motivated enrollment. Hybrid models show early completion data in the 50–70% range from pilot studies.

Key Takeaway for Decision-Makers: Current evidence does not support the premise that center-based CR produces categorically superior outcomes compared to well-structured alternatives. The strongest predictor of patient benefit is program completion. However, the higher completion rates reported by individual virtual programs require multi-site validation before they can be treated as representative benchmarks for the model as a whole. Decision-makers should evaluate model-specific evidence maturity alongside outcome data.

Economics: Cost, Reimbursement, and Value Implications by Model

For payers and health system finance leaders, the clinical comparison above is necessary but insufficient. Delivery model selection also has direct cost and value implications.

Methodology note: The cost estimates below are drawn from published program-level analyses, CMS fee schedules, and industry benchmarks. They are not derived from a single standardized methodology or multi-payer study. Center-based cost figures reflect facility-reported data and Medicare reimbursement rates. Virtual CR figures are drawn from individual program analyses. Direct comparison across models should account for differences in cost definition (e.g., whether overhead, intake, and follow-up are included), patient mix, and program design. Where possible, we note the source basis. Actual costs vary by program, payer mix, geography, and market.

Center-Based CR has established CMS reimbursement under CPT 93797 (physician-directed services without continuous ECG) and 93798 (with continuous ECG monitoring). Published Medicare reimbursement rates average $58–$85 per session. Total program costs — including facility overhead, staffing, and equipment — vary by site. When completion rates of 25–40% are factored in, the effective cost per completed patient is substantially higher than the per-session rate suggests. Industry estimates place the total cost per completed center-based patient at roughly $4,000–$8,000 or more, depending on facility cost structure and completion rates.

Home-Based CR generally has lower direct delivery costs due to reduced facility overhead. However, inconsistent billing pathways and the absence of standardized session-based CPT codes for many home-based components limit reimbursement predictability. Total costs depend heavily on the level and frequency of clinical follow-up provided.

Virtual CR is reimbursable under CMS telehealth pathways, primarily through RPM codes (CPT 99453–99458) and telehealth visit codes, as expanded in the 2025 Physician Fee Schedule rule. These codes reimburse for device setup, data transmission, and clinical monitoring time — a different structure than the per-session billing of center-based CR. Some commercial payers contract for virtual CR as a covered benefit or through value-based arrangements, though coverage terms are not yet standardized across markets. Because virtual programs eliminate facility costs and can scale staff-to-patient ratios through technology, the cost per completed patient may be lower than center-based CR at higher completion rates. Published program-level estimates have placed virtual CR costs in the range of $1,800–$3,500 per completed patient. These figures are directional — derived from individual program analyses rather than multi-payer studies — and should be evaluated against local cost structures and contract terms before direct comparison with center-based figures above.

Hybrid CR cost profiles are less standardized. The in-person component incurs facility costs for early sessions, while the virtual continuation reduces marginal costs for later sessions. Total cost depends on the split ratio and operational integration efficiency.

Value-Based Care Implications: For risk-bearing plans and ACOs, the most relevant metric is not per-session cost but total cost of care impact. CR completion is associated with reduced downstream utilization — fewer readmissions, fewer ED visits, and lower cardiac-related spending in the 6–12 months post-event (Ades et al., 2017). Models that achieve higher completion rates generate more total value in risk-bearing arrangements, even if per-session reimbursement structures differ. When evaluating model economics, decision-makers should weight completion probability as heavily as unit cost.

Selecting the Right Model: A Patient and Operational Decision Framework

No single delivery model is optimal for all patients or organizations. The following framework maps common patient profiles and operational factors to the model most likely to achieve completion and clinical benefit.

By Patient Profile:

By Operational and Financial Context:

Implementation examples: Several large health systems have adopted multi-model strategies. Henry Ford Health has publicly described integrating virtual CR components alongside its established center-based program to expand access across its multi-site system. Kaiser Permanente has incorporated home-based and telehealth CR pathways to reach members in regions without facility access. The VA health system has scaled virtual CR delivery across its national network, leveraging its existing telehealth infrastructure to serve veterans in rural and underserved areas — a population with particularly acute geographic access barriers.

Referral Workflow and Operational Considerations

The right cardiac rehab model is only as effective as the referral pathway connecting eligible patients to it. Referral workflow reliability often determines whether a patient ever starts rehabilitation.

Manual, site-specific referral processes create delay between discharge and intake — and every week of delay lowers enrollment probability (Ades et al., 2017). Center-based programs require geographic matching and capacity availability. Home-based programs reduce travel barriers but can stall without structured follow-up. Virtual CR simplifies referral logic: no geographic matching, faster scheduling, and easier integration into discharge and cardiology follow-up workflows.

For organizations evaluating cardiac rehab after heart attack, referral-to-start speed is both a clinical and economic lever.

{{get-started}}

Virtual Cardiac Rehab With Carda Health

For health plans and health systems evaluating how to close the CR utilization gap, the comparison above points to a consistent pattern: access barriers and completion rates — not clinical protocol differences — account for most of the outcome variation between models.

Carda Health provides a fully virtual cardiac rehab program with live clinical sessions, remote physiologic monitoring, and structured care management. For organizations considering virtual CR as part of a multi-model strategy, Carda supports implementation across several common scenarios: expanding geographic reach beyond existing facility catchments, improving referral-to-start timelines through integrated enrollment workflows, and providing a scalable pathway for risk-bearing arrangements where completion rate drives downstream cost savings. If your organization is evaluating how virtual CR fits into your cardiac service line, learn how Carda Health supports implementation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the most effective cardiac rehab delivery model?

All guideline-aligned models reduce cardiovascular mortality and rehospitalization. The 2017 Cochrane review found no significant outcome differences between home-based and center-based delivery (Anderson et al., 2017), and systematic reviews of telehealth-based CR report comparable functional improvements, though with more heterogeneous study designs and smaller sample sizes (Ramachandran et al., 2022; Frederix et al., 2015). The most effective model in practice is the one that achieves the highest completion among your patient population, which makes access design, patient matching, and engagement structure as important as clinical protocol.

Is virtual cardiac rehab covered by Medicare and commercial payers?

CMS expanded coverage pathways for virtual and telehealth-delivered CR services through the 2025 Physician Fee Schedule rule. Reimbursement is primarily structured through remote physiologic monitoring codes (CPT 99453–99458) and telehealth visit codes, rather than mirroring the per-session billing of center-based CR (CPT 93797/93798). Some commercial payers reimburse virtual CR as a covered benefit or support it through value-based contracts. Coverage terms, eligible diagnoses, and billing requirements vary significantly by payer, market, and contract type — verify specific coverage with your contracts team before building referral workflows around a reimbursement assumption.

How do completion rates compare across cardiac rehab models?

Published data shows center-based completion at 25–40% of enrollees (Ades et al., 2017) and home-based at 40–60% with structured follow-up (Anderson et al., 2017). Structured virtual programs have reported completion rates of 70–85%, though these come from individual program evaluations and have not yet been validated in large multi-site studies. Hybrid models report early data in the 50–70% range from pilot studies. All completion figures should be interpreted in the context of program design, patient selection, and evidence maturity — the comparison table above includes an evidence confidence row for this purpose.

Can virtual cardiac rehab replace center-based programs?

For clinically stable patients, current evidence supports virtual CR as delivering comparable functional and quality-of-life outcomes (Ramachandran et al., 2022). Higher-acuity patients with complex hemodynamic needs may still benefit from in-person initiation — a hybrid approach addresses this by combining supervised start with virtual continuation. Most systems will maintain multiple options and route patients based on clinical acuity, access factors, and patient preference, as outlined in the decision framework above.

References

1. Thomas RJ, Beatty AL, Beckie TM, et al. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation: a scientific statement from the AHA, AACVPR, and ACC. Circulation. 2019;140(1):e69–e89. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000663
2. Anderson L, Sharp GA, Norton RJ, et al. Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017;6(6):CD007130. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD007130.pub4/full
3. Supervia M, Turk-Adawi K, Lopez-Jimenez F, et al. Nature of cardiac rehabilitation around the globe. EClinicalMedicine. 2019;13:46–56. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(19)30099-9/fulltext
4. Dalal HM, Doherty P, Taylor RS. Cardiac rehabilitation. BMJ. 2015;351:h5000. https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h5000
5. Rawstorn JC, Gant N, Direito A, Beckmann C, Maddison R. Telehealth exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart. 2016;102(15):1183–1192. https://heart.bmj.com/content/102/15/1183
6. Ades PA, Keteyian SJ, Wright JS, et al. Increasing cardiac rehabilitation participation from 20% to 70%: a road map from the Million Hearts Cardiac Rehabilitation Collaborative. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2017;92(2):234–242. https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/s0025-6196(16)30648-6/fulltext
7. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Cardiac rehabilitation and intensive cardiac rehabilitation. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeeSched
8. Ritchey MD, Maresh S, McNeely J, et al. Tracking cardiac rehabilitation participation and completion among Medicare beneficiaries to inform the efforts of a national initiative. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. 2020;13(1):e005902. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.005902
9. Ramachandran HJ, Jiang Y, Tam WWS, Yeo TJ, Wang W. Effectiveness of home-based cardiac telerehabilitation as an alternative to Phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. 2022;29(7):1017–1043. https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/article/29/7/1017/6525064
10. Anderson L, Thompson DR, Oldridge N, et al. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016;(1):CD001800. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001800.pub3/full
11. Frederix I, Hansen D, Berber K, et al. Effect of comprehensive cardiac telerehabilitation on one-year cardiovascular rehospitalization rate, medical costs and quality of life: a cost-effectiveness analysis. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. 2015;22(10):1354–1363. https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/article/22/10/1354/5926850