Patient engagement & telehealth · Patient intake & registration
Clearwave
Clearwave provides patient intake and registration software - self-service check-in, eligibility, and related front-door workflows that connect to ambulatory EHRs. It is not a clinical messaging inbox or inpatient EHR.
Strong fit
- Ambulatory and specialty groups that need self-service registration, eligibility, and check-in that feeds the EHR
- Organizations measuring door-to-provider time and front-desk FTE after kiosk or mobile intake launches
- Buyers comparing intake platforms rather than full digital-health EHRs
Weak fit
- Practices that only need SMS reminders without registration or eligibility
- Buyers shopping an inpatient EHR
- Teams unwilling to redesign front-desk workflows around self-service
Bottom line
Clearwave earns a Recommend for ambulatory groups whose bottleneck is registration, eligibility, and check-in - not clinical messaging alone. Outcomes look strongest when door-to-provider time and registration staff load move after self-service intake is live in the EHR workflow. Product depth sits closer to Phreesia on intake than to Spruce on telephony; payments depth is usually narrower than Phreesia's full suite depending on packaging. Implementation needs EHR interfaces and front-desk redesign. Pricing is custom mid-market SaaS. Third-party estimates commonly land near $15-22M. Score sits mid-pack on our patient-engagement board behind Phreesia, Healthie, and Curogram for messaging-led peers.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Clearwave provides patient intake and registration software - self-service check-in, eligibility, and related front-door workflows that connect to ambulatory EHRs.
Compare Phreesia when intake-plus-payments is the full job, and Curogram or Spruce when secure messaging is the main pain.
Score reflects solid intake utility with Conditional-leaning implementation friction on complex EHR estates.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Clearwave | 7.1 | 6.8 |
| Phreesia | 8.2 | 7.8 |
| Notable | 7.5 | 7.0 |
| Curogram | 7.5 | 7.3 |
| Relatient | 7.2 | 6.9 |
| Luma Health | 7.4 | 7.0 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Custom SaaS for intake, eligibility, and patient access workflows; site and volume based. |
| What usually drives cost | Locations, patient volume, modules (eligibility, payments, mobile), and EHR interface scope. |
| What to ask in diligence | Annual cost at your location and visit volume, interface fees, and what payments modules cost extra. |
| Published pricing | Public list price: not published. Expect a patient-access platform quote. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Clearwave to function | |
| EHR interface owner and test patients ready | Intake without write-back creates duplicate charts. |
| Front-desk redesign willingness for self-service | Kiosks ignored beside a full manual desk fail. |
| Eligibility and registration data fields agreed | Wrong field maps create claim rework. |
| Device or mobile intake path chosen per location | Hardware surprises delay go-live. |
| Payments scope decided (collect now vs later) | Half-built payments confuse patients. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Track door-to-provider time and registration FTE | Go-live parties are not outcomes. |
| Fix top rejection reasons in week one | Eligibility noise trains staff to bypass. |
| Staff a floor walker for the first clinic week | Patients abandon new flows without help. |
| Turn off redundant paper forms after parallel week | Dual entry doubles work. |
| Review incomplete registrations daily | Silent drop-offs look like no-shows. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| You only want SMS reminders with no registration change. | |
| No EHR interface budget or owner. | |
| Front desk will not change workflow. | |
| You need an inpatient EHR. | |
| Leadership will not measure intake outcomes. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Interface & build | 3–8 weeks — EHR maps, branding, location setup. |
| 2 | Pilot location | 2–4 weeks — One site proves registration quality. |
| 3 | Rollout | 1–3 months — Remaining sites; hardware as needed. |
| 4 | Optimize | Ongoing — Field fixes, payments, analytics. |
Methodology
| Weight | Factor | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| 35% | Customer outcomes | Whether buyers get measurable operational or clinical-workflow results after go-live |
| 30% | Product | Capability depth, reliability, and fit for the job the category actually buys |
| 20% | Implementation | How hard it is to stand up, integrate, train, and stabilize |
| 15% | Pricing clarity | Whether a buyer can model total cost without a mystery quote |
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Highly recommend | Strong outcomes and product with manageable caveats |
| Recommend | Solid fit for the right buyer; know the tradeoffs |
| Conditional | Only with a specific use case or heavy caveats |
| Not recommended | Avoid for most buyers in this category |
Read our full methodology for how we weight scores and assign recommend labels.