Home health ops · Multi-line home care platform
CareVoyant
CareVoyant is a cloud home care and home health platform covering intake, authorization, scheduling, clinical documentation, eMAR/eTAR, EVV, and billing across private duty, PDN, personal care, HCBS, and home health on one patient record. It is not a hospital EHR.
Strong fit
- Agencies running private duty, pediatric private duty nursing, personal care, and home health on one patient record
- Agencies that track lost authorizations, visit verification problems, and claims paid on first submission
- Mid-sized agencies that need electronic medication and treatment records tied to scheduling and billing
Weak fit
- Large post-acute chains that run on big platforms like WellSky or Homecare Homebase
- Buyers who will not bring intake for all their service lines into one system
- Groups that only want a separate visit verification app
Bottom line
CareVoyant is worth using for home care agencies that run several service lines and want one clinical and billing system for all of them. It suits mid-sized agencies offering private duty, pediatric nursing, community services, and home health. Agencies that want a bigger brand or deeper hospice tools may prefer Axxess.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
CareVoyant is a cloud platform for home care and home health agencies. It covers intake, authorization, scheduling, clinical documentation, medication and treatment records, electronic visit verification, and billing.
Everything sits on one patient record and one employee record shared across service lines. Those lines include private duty, pediatric private duty nursing, home and community-based services, and home health. It is agency software, not a hospital EHR.
Prices are not published. Among home health operations tools we review, CareVoyant scores below Axxess and KanTime on brand scale. It fits mid-sized agencies with several service lines well.
Axxess suits agencies that care more about brand scale and hospice depth. AxisCare suits agencies whose main need is private-duty scheduling.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Axxess | 7.9 | 7.5 |
| KanTime | 7.6 | 7.3 |
| AxisCare | 7.5 | 7.2 |
| ShiftCare | 7.4 | 7.3 |
| Therap | 7.3 | 7.1 |
| Alora | 7.2 | 7.0 |
| AlayaCare | 7.2 | 6.9 |
| Ankota | 7.2 | 7.3 |
| CareSmartz360 | 7.1 | 6.9 |
| CareVoyant | 7.0 | 6.8 |
| HHAeXchange | 6.9 | 6.6 |
| Careficient | 6.8 | 6.6 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Cloud software for home care and home health, quoted by agency size and modules. |
| What usually drives cost | The number of users and patients, service lines, how much visit verification you need, and how complex your billing is. |
| What to ask before you buy | The full monthly cost for your patient count and service lines, including visit verification and medication record modules. |
| Published pricing | CareVoyant does not publish prices. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get CareVoyant to function | |
| A list of your service lines and payer authorizations | Agencies with several service lines run into trouble on authorization rules. |
| Written visit verification rules for each state | The wrong visit verification setup holds up payment. |
| Named clinical and billing leads for the switch | Agency switches fail without both. |
| Clean main lists of patients and employees | Duplicate records ruin scheduling. |
| Device plan for field clinicians | Point-of-care apps fail without a plan for working offline or staying connected. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Start with one service line before switching them all | Switching every line at once is risky. |
| Measure lost authorizations and claims paid on first submission every week | Real numbers matter more than demos. |
| Train schedulers on travel time and how caregivers are matched to patients | Bad matches lead to missed visits. |
| Stop old billing exports after one week of running claims in both systems | Billing from two systems leads to denials. |
| Confirm medication and treatment record steps with nursing leaders | Medication errors turn into survey findings. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| You only need a separate visit verification app. | |
| Your service lines and authorization rules are not defined. | |
| No clinical or billing lead owns the switch. | |
| You will not move your main patient lists. | |
| Leaders expect the schedule not to change at all. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | From signing to kickoff | 2-4 weeks |
| 2 | From kickoff to the first service line in use | 8-16 weeks |
| 3 | From the first line to steady results across all lines | 3-6 months |
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 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.