Why It Matters

A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report published August 6, 2026 (GAO-26-107847) examines the potential benefits and challenges of using wearables in clinical decision-making. Wearables use sensors to track vital signs and establish patient health baselines, then alert users, caregivers, or clinicians of medical events or suggested lifestyle changes. They can also provide additional assessments of user data for clinician interpretation. The potential upside is significant: wearables may allow clinicians to give patients more timely and personalized treatment, may benefit underserved populations by expanding remote patient monitoring, and may enable quicker diagnoses. They may also improve patient compliance with treatment plans.

Wearables vary in accuracy and reliability. Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to increase wearable capabilities by improving autonomous decision-making, but the extent to which wearables will be able to make clinical decisions autonomously remains unclear. The report identifies three problem areas for policymakers: ensuring wearables benefit patients as intended, integrating wearables into clinical workflows, and navigating the health technology market.

The Big Picture

The push to integrate wearables into mainstream medical practice is already underway. In 2025, leaders at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced support for increasing the use of wearables in health care. Manufacturers and medical association representatives have also called for greater integration into clinical decision-making.

GAO was asked to review the potential role of wearables in clinical decision-making. The GAO product page does not name a specific congressional requester, and the report does not cite any legislation, public law, bill number, or committee report provision as its mandate. Because this is a technology assessment rather than a traditional audit, GAO developed three policy options for consideration by a broad range of policymakers, including legislative bodies, government agencies, standards-setting organizations, and industry.

Political Stakes

The three options GAO outlined present distinct tradeoffs. Continuing the status quo would allow monitoring and assessing of ongoing digital health activities to help address some identified challenges, though some challenges may remain unaddressed and some current activities may worsen them.

Refining clinical workflows and technology infrastructure to support wearables integration could establish common practices for receiving, responding to, and protecting patient health data, and could clarify clinician liability responsibilities. Considerations include resource diversion from other priorities, variable results by local implementation strategy, and the risk that integrating selected wearables could reduce use of non-selected devices.

Incentivizing manufacturers to improve wearables' performance through an independent certification database would build a public database of wearables that have completed an independent certification process, helping administrators, clinicians, and patients make more informed decisions. However, a certification process separate from the Food and Drug Administration's review process may create confusion for manufacturers, clinicians, and patients, with potential effects on patient safety. Research and development costs may also rise significantly, hindering new market entrants and potentially advantaging larger, established manufacturers.

To reach its conclusions, GAO reviewed scientific literature, federal agency guidance, and other documents; interviewed a wide range of stakeholders and agency representatives; and conducted site visits to laboratories, medical and research centers, and manufacturers. Sarah Harvey, Director of Science and Technology Assessment in the Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics division, is the GAO contact for this report.

The Bottom Line

GAO did not select among the three options or recommend one over the others. The report frames the wearables question as genuinely unresolved: the technology holds measurable promise for faster, more personalized care and expanded access for underserved populations, but accuracy gaps, workflow friction, and market complexity remain real obstacles. Policymakers across government, industry, and standards bodies will need to weigh those tradeoffs before integration into clinical practice can scale.

***

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.

---

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article