Home health ops · Post-acute agency EMR
KanTime
KanTime is a cloud agency-management and EMR platform for home health, hospice, private duty, pediatric, and related post-acute programs. Agencies use it for documentation, EVV, scheduling, and billing. It is not a hospital inpatient EHR.
Strong fit
- Multi-line agencies spanning home health, hospice, private duty, and pediatrics
- Operators who need EVV, clinical docs, and billing in one cloud agency system
- Teams measuring documentation lag, clean claims, and visit productivity
Weak fit
- Hospital inpatient EHR programs
- Tiny private-duty shops that only need a simple schedule app
- Buyers who will not migrate caregivers onto mobile point-of-care tools
Bottom line
KanTime earns a Recommend for post-acute agencies that want one cloud system for intake, clinical documentation, EVV, scheduling, and billing across home health and adjacent lines. Outcomes show up when documentation lag falls and claims leave cleaner. Product depth covers multi-branch and multi-program agencies better than light home-care schedulers. Implementation is still an agency cutover with roster and payer-rule work. Pricing is quote-based. Score sits just above AxisCare on this station's board for broader clinical EMR depth.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
KanTime sells cloud agency-management software for home health, hospice, private duty, pediatric, and related post-acute programs. Agencies use it for intake, point-of-care documentation, scheduling, EVV, billing, and operational reporting.
It sits next to Alora and Axxess when you need a full agency EMR, and next to AxisCare when private-duty scheduling is the center of gravity. KanTime's pitch is breadth across care lines without bolting separate systems together.
Score reflects solid outcomes and product marks with the usual agency cutover friction and opaque list pricing.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| KanTime | 7.6 | 7.3 |
| Axxess | 7.9 | 7.5 |
| AxisCare | 7.5 | 7.2 |
| Alora | 7.2 | 7.0 |
| Therap | 7.3 | 7.1 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Cloud agency software sold on quote, typically sized by users, programs, and modules. |
| What usually drives cost | Agency size, care lines in scope, EVV and billing modules, and implementation or training packages. |
| What to ask in diligence | Modeled cost for your active users and care lines, plus cutover and EVV exception support. |
| Published pricing | Public list price: not published. Expect a quote based on agency size and modules. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get KanTime to function | |
| Clean client and caregiver rosters for migration | Garbage in becomes bad schedules forever. |
| EVV requirements mapped for your states | Noncompliant visit capture risks payment. |
| Coordinator champions for the schedule as system of record | Shadow spreadsheets kill ROI. |
| Billing owner for payer rules in your mix | Ops software still needs revenue ownership. |
| Mobile device plan for caregivers or field staff | Apps fail when phones are an afterthought. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Measure fill rate, documentation lag, and clean claims | Ops outcomes beat feature checklists. |
| Train on exception handling, not only happy path | Call-offs and EVV exceptions are the real test. |
| Cut over billing with a parallel week, then stop dual entry | Endless dual entry doubles work. |
| Stabilize core scheduling before adding advanced modules | Fancy features on a broken roster confuse staff. |
| Review EVV or visit-exception queues daily at first | Small misses become payment denials. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| You need a hospital inpatient EHR. | |
| You will not migrate off spreadsheets. | |
| Field staff cannot use mobile tools. | |
| No one owns billing rules for your payer mix. | |
| Leadership expects zero cutover disruption. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Contract signed → kickoff | 2-6 weeks (security review, roster clean-up, EVV mapping) |
| 2 | Kickoff → first live workflow | 6-14 weeks for first-branch scheduling and documentation |
| 3 | First live workflow → steady value | 3-6 months before multi-branch expansion feels routine |
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.