Wearable Tech in 2026: What Every Physician Should Know
We’re living in the wild world of wearables (WWW). I’m writing this article with my Garmin on my left wrist, WHOOP on my right wrist, an iPhone in my pocket, and a Dexcom Stelo en route to my apartment—which I’ll place behind my left arm. I’m basically getting hospital-level monitoring at my desk. (Joking, but it feels like it.)
From Oura Ring to Apple Watch, Dexcom Stelo to Abbott Lingo, the market is saturated with wearable tech. The wearable space is at an inflection point, and it's worth explaining why now: three in five U.S. adults own a wearable (up 33 percentage points since 2015), AI is being layered on top of sensor data to turn raw biometrics into actionable insights, CMS is actively piloting reimbursement for wearable-supported care via the ACCESS Model, and peer-reviewed trials are validating what these devices can do clinically. When technology, policy, clinical evidence, and financial incentives all move in the same direction at the same time—that's what an inflection point looks like.
In this healthcare trends report, I'll break down the wearable tech space—key players, the consumer vs. medical-grade distinction, and where I think this is all headed.
Wearable Tech: What Is It?
Wearable tech spans more ground than most people realize: smartwatches tracking heart rate and blood pressure, rings monitoring sleep architecture, patches reading interstitial glucose in real time, even earrings measuring body temperature. The form factors keep expanding, but the underlying goal is the same—continuous, passive data collection from your body.
Consumers (emphasis on consumers, not patients) use them across a wide spectrum—from passive tracking to active optimization. Some barely glance at their data; others structure their entire day around recovery scores, strain metrics, and HRV trends (me). That spectrum matters clinically, because it shapes how consumers interpret—and act on—the data they bring into your exam room.
Who’s Wearing Wearable Technology?
Rock Health just published their 2025 consumer adoption survey, finding that three out of five U.S. adults own at least one wearable or connected device. That’s up 33 percentage points compared to 2015. Smartwatches continue to dominate the space (looking at you, Apple Watch).
Source: Rock Health
According to the survey, wearable users tend to be younger, wealthier, and healthier. The mix is roughly even between men and women. They are also more likely to be commercially insured. Smart rings, specifically, are gaining significant traction among millennials (we account for 59% of owners!).
One stat we should all pay attention to is how often people are actually wearing these devices. Eighty-three percent of wearable owners wear their device five or more days per week, and nearly 60% of surveyed consumers are always or nearly always wearing it. WHOOP's motto is "always on," and the product design reinforces that (charging is portable).
The equity gap in that adoption data deserves a closer look. Among millennials, ownership sits at 71%. Among the Silent Generation, it's 37%. High-income households (>$200k) own wearables at 67%. Low-income households (<$25k) own them at 41%. Commercially insured patients: 69%. Uninsured: 38%. Urban consumers own wearables at 64% vs. 48% in rural areas. We can't talk about wearables improving population health without acknowledging that the people most likely to benefit from continuous monitoring are the least likely to own these devices.
One more data point that I can corroborate from both being a patient and a clinician: 59% of wearable owners have discussed their data with a healthcare provider. Thirty percent do it regularly. Another 20% want to but haven't. Only 17% have no interest at all. As physicians, we're going to see more wearable data in our exam rooms whether we're prepared for it or not.
Target Markets
As a loyal wearable tech user since I bought my Garmin Forerunner 110 in 2010, and now a WHOOP owner since 2021, and a physician who thinks about wearables and data every day, I group the consumer market into three buckets. This framework helps me think about the impact of wearable tech.
Performance Optimization: these are your athletes and extremely health-conscious consumers who want to optimize their health. They focus on sleep, diet, and vigorous activity. They care about “longevity”. WHOOP, Garmin, and Oura target these markets.
Lifestyle: these are your average consumers who care about their health but aren’t as focused on optimizing every aspect of their data (HR, HRV, sleep, “strain”, “recovery.”). Step count and resting heart rate are enough.
Detection: these are your consumers and patients who use wearables to essentially “watch” them (no pun intended). They’re monitoring heart rate to detect abnormal rhythms, gait, sound levels, and falls. I’ll talk more about this below, but this is like your “guardian angel” technology. Apple Watch falls into this category, although it also fits into the other two categories above.
Key Players
The wearable market isn’t equally distributed. A handful of players are driving most of the innovation and most of the clinical implications. Mapping them onto the three-bucket framework above—Performance Optimization, Lifestyle, and Detection—makes it easier to see who matters to us as physicians, and why.
Apple Watch: Most of your patients already own one. It’s the only consumer wearable that meaningfully spans all three buckets (fitness tracking for the optimizer, step counts for the lifestyle user, and AFib or fall detection for the patient you’re concerned about). That breadth, combined with more FDA clearances than any other consumer wearable on the market, is what separates it clinically from the rest of the pack.
Oura Ring: They’ve raised $875 million at an $11 billion valuation, acquired a CGM startup (Verily), brought in Galen AI for EHR integration, launched Oura Ring 5, and are heading toward an IPO. Started squarely in the Performance Optimization bucket; now pushing hard toward clinical integration.
WHOOP: Built for the Performance Optimization user. There’s no screen, no display, just continuous biometric data piped into a clean app, worn on the wrist, bicep, or in undergarments. Last raise: $575 million at a $10.1 billion valuation. They recently hired physicians to offer in-app video consults, a meaningful step toward the Detection bucket and something closer to care delivery.
Fitbit (Google): Fitbit Air recently dropped, no subscription, $99, and a direct challenge to WHOOP’s model. Google wants to own the health data aggregation layer across Android’s global user base.
Garmin: The OG endurance wearable that most people sleep on. Q1 2026: $1.75B in revenue, fitness segment up 42% year-over-year. Flat hardware fee, no subscription, one of the most loyal user bases in the space.
Dexcom Stelo / Abbott Lingo: CGMs marketed directly to non-diabetics. We've ordered CGMs for patients with diabetes for years. Stelo and Lingo are asking a different question: what does continuous glucose data tell us about everyone else? The clinical jury is still out, but these two sit at the clearest intersection of consumer wearable and medical-grade device in the entire space.
Samsung Galaxy Watch: The most underrated player here. Blood pressure monitoring (cleared in select markets), ECG, sleep apnea detection, body composition analysis—all on one of the most widely distributed hardware platforms in the world. Android's market share gives Samsung a quiet scale advantage that rarely gets the credit it deserves.
Consumer vs Medical Grade
I emphasize “consumers” because the line between consumer wearable tech for consumers and medical wearable tech for patients is getting increasingly blurry. As a consumer reading this, you may not care about that distinction. As a physician reading this, you have to.
We love data, especially when we’re making clinical decisions, but the data is only useful if it’s trustworthy. The most practical way to judge that is whether it’s been reviewed by the FDA under three different pathways:
510(k) Premarket Clearance: This is the most common pathway, accounting for roughly 85% of FDA-authorized medical devices. The 510(k) process requires companies to demonstrate their device is "substantially equivalent" to an already-approved predicate device.
Premarket Approval (PMA): PMA is the most rigorous pathway, reserved for high-risk devices where no substantially equivalent device exists or safety concerns require comprehensive clinical data.
De Novo Classification: This pathway exists for novel devices that don't fit existing classifications and lack appropriate predicate devices for 510(k) clearance.
Pathway | 510(k) Premarket Clearance | Premarket Approval (PMA) | De Novo Classification |
|---|---|---|---|
Timeline | 90 days (often longer) | 180 days (1-3 years reality) | 120 days (often longer) |
Cost | $10K-50K in FDA fees | $400K+ in fees, millions in trials | Similar to 510(k) |
Evidence Required | Substantial equivalence to predicate | Comprehensive clinical data | Establish new safety profile |
Risk Level | Low to moderate (Class I-II) | High risk (Class III) | Typically Class II, novel tech |
Market Share | ~85% of FDA devices | ~5% of FDA devices | ~10% of FDA devices |
Examples | BP monitors, Apple Watch | Pacemakers, heart valves | First CGMs, AI diagnostics |
The best way to understand the distinction is to read my prior content, Apple Watch vs. WHOOP: The Battle for Blood Pressure Tracking.
The TL;DR: Apple Watch and WHOOP both launched blood pressure features.
Apple Watch notifies you if you have high blood pressure, but it won’t give you an actual reading. Apple received 510(k) premarket clearance for this feature.
WHOOP estimates your blood pressure using a ML algorithm. WHOOP did not seek any FDA clearance or approval for this feature.
In the summer of 2025, the FDA sent WHOOP a strongly worded letter stating that because the blood pressure feature provides actual blood pressure readings, it’s considered a medical device that requires FDA clearance or approval.
WHOOP responded by saying this feature is a “wellness” or “healthy lifestyle” tool rather than diagnostic. (Like tracking steps.)
The FDA said, “wrong,” arguing that providing blood pressure estimates with color-coded indicators (green, yellow, orange) clearly serves a diagnostic function.
The debate continues, but it seems like WHOOP is in the clear (see below “Policy”)
All of this to say, a device that is cleared or approved by the FDA is worth a physician’s attention if a patient brings in Apple Watch data suggesting hypertension, but that may not be true for devices without FDA clearance or approval.
Wearable Tech Tailwinds
Conditions are ripe for wearable tech right now.
1. Policy
CMS is testing the ACCESS (Advancing Chronic Care with Effective Scalable Solutions) Model to bring more wearables to the Medicare population. It’s a new payment option that allows clinicians to offer innovative, technology-supported care to improve patients’ health and complement traditional care. WHOOP was one of the companies chosen. Additionally, the FDA has loosened, or more accurately “revised,” what a wearable intended for wellness is allowed to say and claim. This works well for WHOOP because it allows WHOOP’s blood pressure insight feature to remain, as long as it does not claim it can diagnose hypertension or treat it.
2. Artificial Intelligence
Every major wearable platform has layered AI on top of its sensor data in the last two years. WHOOP has an AI Coach. Oura has an AI Advisor. Hims & Hers Labs is running an AI care agent that reasons across 130+ biomarkers. The shift is from raw data to interpreted insights. Instead of seeing your HRV drop, you’re told what it means and what to do about it. Apple remains one of the few holdouts without a native AI coaching layer, which says as much about their broader AI strategy as it does about their wearables roadmap.
3. Longevity
Longevity has become a cultural phenomenon, and wearables are central to it. Devices in the “Performance Optimization” bucket (WHOOP, Oura, Garmin) were already the preferred tools for people who track every biomarker with intention. The next evolution is combining biometrics with biomarkers: direct-to-consumer lab testing is now integrating with wearable data. WHOOP offers lab panels. Oura offers lab panels. The data picture is expanding well beyond heart rate and sleep.
Wearable companies are also pushing into care delivery. Oura just signed a partnership with Counsel Health:
Oura Members can now start with Medical AI from Counsel for clinical questions informed by their Oura data, and when needed, connect with Counsel’s board-certified physicians within minutes, right in the Oura App.
4. Clinical Evidence Is Building
The Apple Watch asthma study—a randomized controlled trial backed by Apple and Elevance—showed that app-based wearable management led to meaningfully improved asthma control scores, especially among Medicaid patients. WHOOP published data from 30,000 members showing sustained reductions in alcohol consumption over 72 weeks. Studies like these are important because they give physicians clinical permission to engage with wearable data rather than dismiss it. The evidence base is growing, and as it does, the gap between “consumer device” and “clinically relevant tool” continues to narrow.
My Vision: Guardian Angel Tech
Guardian Angel Tech is my vision for where the wearable space is headed. Everyone will own some wearable that is always analyzing vitals and movement—a “guardian angel watching you”—and can intervene early to prevent bad outcomes.
Guardian Angel Technology represents a paradigm shift in wearable tech, moving from passive data collection to active health management. By integrating predictive analytics and machine learning, these devices offer a glimpse into a future where wearables proactively protect and guide our health. As the technology evolves, addressing disparities in adoption will be key to ensuring its benefits reach everyone.
Quick examples off the top of my head:
You have heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Your Withings smart scale trends a 5 lb increase in weight in two days. Apple Watch detects a drop in baseline O2 saturation. Guardian Angel Tech tells you to seek medical attention for an impending heart failure exacerbation.
Your iPhone and Apple Watch detect a trend toward fewer stairs climbed, a rising resting heart rate, decreasing heart rate variability, and a slower walking pace. It suggests seeing a cardiologist for an echocardiogram. Pulmonary hypertension is detected earlier rather than later.
Your Apple Watch detects AFib. It then detects an abnormal gait. It tells you to go to the emergency department to rule out embolic stroke.
Your Apple Watch detects an abnormal rhythm. You have Kardia and obtain a 6-lead EKG using just your fingers. It shows atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response. You call your cardiologist. They tell you to go to the emergency department ASAP.
It's like the light that turns on in your car mirror when you want to change lanes, but there's a car in your blind spot. The wearable is catching things before things go south!
Dashevsky Dissection
Wearables are exciting, and I say that as someone with four of them on or near his body right now. But excitement doesn't mean we should turn our brains off.
Here's my clinical take: when a patient brings me their wearable data, the first question I ask myself isn't "what does this show?" but instead "how was this measured, and has the FDA looked at it?" This distinction matters a bit more than most of us are taught to think about. I do NOT think wearable data should integrate into the EHR unless it's been FDA cleared or approved. WHOOP's blood pressure insights? Not in my chart. My patient's Omron readings—FDA-cleared—absolutely. That line is important since it's the difference between data I can act on and data I have to take with a grain of salt.
The other thing: the people who would benefit most from this technology are the least likely to have it. I covered the equity gaps above and noted that lower-income, uninsured, rural, and older patients own wearables at significantly lower rates. If wearables become a meaningful part of how we monitor chronic disease, that gap has consequences. We can't close that loop without talking about access.
That said, I'm optimistic. The guardian angel vision—a wearable that's always on, always analyzing, and actually intervenes when something's wrong—is closer than it's ever been. AI makes it more plausible every year. I just want us to get there with the same rigor we'd apply to anything else we use to make clinical decisions.
