PARTNERED WITH

RFK Jr. recently floated the idea of every American wearing a health-tracking device by the end of Trump’s term—part of his broader “Make America Healthy Again” vision. Since then, he’s walked it back a bit, acknowledging that wearables might not be for everyone due to privacy and cost concerns. Still, HHS is moving forward with a marketing campaign aimed at making wearable tech feel cool, modern, and essential.

I’ll be the first to say: I love wearable tech. My friends and colleagues know this about me. But as a physician—and a longtime wearable user—I don’t think wearables are the silver bullet they’re made out to be. In fact, I don’t think they’re right for everyone.

In this article, I’ll walk through RFK Jr.’s push for wearables, explore the booming business behind them, and explain why I think wearable tech is promising—but still far from universally useful.

While testifying before Congress last month, RFK Jr. said he’d like to see every American using a wearable device by the end of President Trump’s term. He’s since softened that statement, but the message was clear: wearables are a key part of his Make America Healthy Again agenda.

HHS is already laying the groundwork. The agency recently put out a call for marketing firms to pitch campaigns that would popularize wearable tech—casting it as cool, modern, and a more proactive way to manage your health.

On paper, it makes sense. Give people a steady stream of personal health data, and maybe they’ll make better decisions. Eat cleaner. Sleep more. Exercise regularly.

But as someone who wears a device every day—and also happens to be a physician—I’m not so convinced. Data alone doesn’t drive behavior change (more on that in my Dissection).

The global wearable tech market was valued at $84 billion in 2024 (up $23 billion from the last time I reported on the trend in 2022). The market is projected to hit $186 billion by 2030. What’s driving the growth?

These growth drivers will contribute to the projected wearable tech market growth CAGR of ~14% from 2025 to 2030.

But not all wearables are made for consumers. There’s a huge B2B—or more accurately, “B2P” (business-to-physician)—market growing in the background. Think continuous glucose monitors for insulin users, cardiac rhythm monitors, at-home OSA tests, and even electrolyte-sensing skin patches.

These are FDA-approved tools designed to support clinical decision-making. I don’t have the market split data, but I’d bet this is where the real money—and real impact—is.

I go deeper on wearable tech in my course How Healthcare Really Works—you can enroll here if you want the full breakdown.

Let me start by saying: I genuinely love wearables. I use them, I track everything, and I find the insights fascinating. What excites me most is what I call the next wave of wearables—Guardian Angel Technology.

These are smart, always-on devices powered by advanced machine learning and predictive analytics. The goal? To proactively monitor your health, predict potential issues, and deliver real-time, personalized feedback. They’re like a silent guardian watching over you—hence the name.

Now if this kind of tech becomes affordable and widely accessible, then sure—I’d be all for everyone wearing one. Especially if it’s giving you truly actionable insights, like:

That’s powerful, helpful, and worth wearing.

But we’re not there yet. Right now, most wearables collect a ton of data, but the insights are either obvious or not actionable. Like being told to avoid screens before bed to improve sleep. Thanks, I know.

There’s also the issue of precision and reliability. I’ve had plenty of patients show me heart rate data from their Fitbit. It’s interesting—but I can’t base medical decisions on it. It’s not a clinical-grade device. On the other hand, when my patients wear FDA-approved continuous glucose monitors, I can—and do—use that data to adjust their treatment plans.

This creates a gray zone. Consumer-grade wearables are everywhere, but their clinical value is still shaky. If we’re going to encourage mass adoption, we need some sort of standardized testing for reliability and precision—not as rigorous as FDA approval, but something to give both consumers and clinicians a basic level of trust.

Until then, we should be cautious about how much weight we give these devices—because data without context or accuracy can do more harm than good.

In summary, wearable tech holds massive potential—but right now, most consumer-grade devices fall short on accuracy, actionability, and clinical utility. Until we see broader access to affordable, reliable, and truly insightful “guardian angel” wearables, we need to be cautious about pushing them as a universal health solution.

🔒 PREMIUM CONTENT THIS WEEK

While you’re reading this, Huddle+ members are diving deeper into the topics that matter most.

Here’s what they saw this week: