Skip to content
Decision-ready map
• Coverage decision: which oximeters/programs are reimbursed
• Equity risk: biased devices can delay care for some members
• Payer levers: procurement standards, vendor requirements, and auditing
• Outcome focus: reduce avoidable deterioration and disparities
(1) What it is
Health insurers increasingly touch pulse oximetry through remote patient monitoring (RPM), home-care pathways, chronic disease programs, and device reimbursement policies. Skin‑tone bias in pulse oximetry is a payer-relevant risk because it can create differential misclassification: some members may appear stable by SpO₂ while true oxygenation is low, increasing the chance of delayed escalation, avoidable complications, and downstream costs. For payers, fairness is not abstract—it affects utilization, outcomes, and equity metrics.
(2) Who it helps
This brief helps payer clinical leadership, medical directors, digital health program managers, and vendor management teams who select devices for RPM programs, define reimbursement eligibility, or contract with monitoring vendors.
(3) What evidence exists
Large paired-measurement analyses show occult hypoxemia occurs more frequently for Black patients than White patients at similar SpO₂ values, which implies that the same RPM threshold rules could generate unequal safety. Reproducibility has been reported in VHA and other cohorts. Health-system analyses associate discrepant pulse oximetry readings with outcomes including organ dysfunction and mortality. A 2024 systematic review concludes that overestimation in darker skin tones is commonly reported and varies by device/model. FDA communications and executive summaries indicate an expectation for improved evaluation and labeling across skin tones, signaling that “device parity” is becoming a standard of care.
(4) Translation barriers
Payers often buy or reimburse commodity oximeters without device-specific stratified validation data. RPM vendors may obscure device models, firmware versions, and calibration differences. Programs frequently implement rigid escalation thresholds (e.g., call center triggers) that magnify bias, and they may lack the ability to confirm SaO₂ outside acute care. Finally, payer datasets may not include standardized skin tone measures, making disparity detection harder unless proactive audits are built.
(5) Equity/safety checks
Treat device performance parity as a contracting requirement. Require vendors to disclose device model and provide stratified accuracy data (or evidence aligned to regulatory expectations). Include protocol safeguards: symptom-based escalation (not only threshold-based), repeat measurement rules, and pathways to clinical assessment when mismatch exists. Audit program outcomes by demographics (where ethically and legally appropriate), focusing on missed deterioration events and escalation timing.
(6) Decision questions
• Which RPM pathways rely on SpO₂ thresholds, and what is the harm/cost of delayed escalation?
• Can the vendor provide device identification and stratified performance evidence across skin pigmentations?
• Do program scripts include a mismatch rule: symptoms override numbers?
• What monitoring metrics will detect inequity early (ED visits after ‘reassuring’ readings, delayed oxygen initiation, complaints)?
(7) Practical next steps
1) Update RPM vendor contracts: require device transparency (model/firmware), stratified validation evidence, and incident reporting.
2) Standardize escalation protocols: add symptom-based triggers and repeat-measurement rules.
3) Build an equity audit dashboard: stratify escalation timing, adverse events, and utilization following low-risk classifications.
4) Coordinate with clinical partners to define when confirmatory testing is warranted and how to refer members.
(8) References
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2029240
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101428
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.31674
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-069775
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.01.023
https://www.fda.gov/media/175828/download
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-proposes-updated-recommendations-help-improve-performance-pulse-oximeters-across-skin-tones
Reference appendix (full citations)
Sjoding MW, Dickson RP, Iwashyna TJ, Gay SE, Valley TS. Racial bias in pulse oximetry measurement. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(25):2477–2478.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2029240
Martin D, Johns C, Sorrell L, et al. Effect of skin tone on the accuracy of the estimation of arterial oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry: a systematic review. Br J Anaesth. 2024;132(5):945–956.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.01.023
Bangash MN, Hodson J, Evison F, et al. Impact of ethnicity on the accuracy of measurements of oxygen saturations: a retrospective observational cohort study. eClinicalMedicine. 2022;48:101428.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101428
Valbuena VSM, Barbaro RP, Claar D, et al. Racial bias in pulse oximetry measurement among patients about to undergo extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in 2019–2020. Chest. 2022;161(4):971–978.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2021.09.025
Wong AKI, Charpignon M, Kim H, et al. Discrepancies between pulse oximetry and arterial oxygen saturation by race/ethnicity and association with organ dysfunction and mortality. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(11):e2131674.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.31674
Valbuena VSM, Seelye S, Sjoding MW, et al. Racial bias and reproducibility in pulse oximetry among medical and surgical inpatients in the Veterans Health Administration 2013–19. BMJ. 2022;378:e069775.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-069775
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA Proposes Updated Recommendations to Help Improve Performance of Pulse Oximeters Across Skin Tones. Press announcement (Jan 6, 2025).
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-proposes-updated-recommendations-help-improve-performance-pulse-oximeters-across-skin-tones
FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Performance Evaluation of Pulse Oximeters Taking into Consideration Skin Pigmentation, Race and Ethnicity: FDA Executive Summary (Feb 2, 2024).
https://www.fda.gov/media/175828/download