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
- Outpatient and specialty groups that need self-service registration, insurance checks, and check-in that flow into the EHR
- Organizations that track the time from arrival to seeing the provider, and front-desk staffing, after kiosk or mobile check-in starts
- Buyers comparing check-in platforms, not full EHRs
Weak fit
- Practices that only need text reminders, without registration or insurance checks
- Buyers looking for an inpatient EHR
- Teams that will not change front-desk work around self-service
Bottom line
Clearwave is worth using for outpatient groups whose bottleneck is registration, eligibility checks, and check-in. It suits practices ready to connect it to their EHR and redesign front-desk work. Practices whose main problem is patient messaging may prefer Curogram or Spruce, and those wanting intake plus payments may prefer Phreesia.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Clearwave makes patient check-in and registration software. It covers self-service check-in, insurance checks, and related front-desk work, and it connects to outpatient EHRs.
For check-in it is closer to Phreesia than to phone-focused tools such as Spruce. Its payment features are usually narrower than Phreesia's, depending on the package.
Results look strongest when patients see the provider sooner after arriving and registration staff have less work once self-service check-in is live.
Getting there takes EHR connections and a redesign of front-desk work. That can be harder in organizations with complex EHR setups. Pricing is custom and aimed at mid-sized groups.
Among patient engagement tools we review, Clearwave scores in the middle, behind Phreesia, Healthie, and Curogram. Phreesia fits when the job is intake plus payments, and Curogram or Spruce fit when secure messaging is the main need.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Healthie | 7.7 | 7.4 |
| OhMD | 7.5 | 7.4 |
| Curogram | 7.5 | 7.3 |
| Spruce Health | 7.3 | 7.4 |
| Rhinogram | 7.1 | 7.3 |
| Clearwave | 7.1 | 6.8 |
| QliqSOFT | 6.7 | 6.5 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Custom software pricing for check-in, insurance checks, and patient access, based on sites and volume. |
| What usually drives cost | The number of locations, patient volume, modules (insurance checks, payments, mobile), and how much EHR connection work is needed. |
| What to ask before you buy | The yearly cost for your locations and visit volume, connection fees, and the extra cost of payment modules. |
| Published pricing | Clearwave does not publish prices. Expect a custom quote. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Clearwave to function | |
| An owner for the EHR connection, and test patients ready | If check-in data does not flow into the EHR, you get duplicate charts. |
| Willingness to redesign the front desk around self-service | Kiosks fail when patients can still go to a fully staffed desk instead. |
| Agreement on insurance and registration data fields | Fields that land in the wrong place mean fixing claims later. |
| A choice of kiosk or phone check-in for each location | Unexpected hardware problems delay the launch. |
| A decision on payments (collect now or later) | Half-finished payment steps confuse patients. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Track time from arrival to seeing the provider, and registration staffing | A launch party is not a result. |
| Fix the most common rejection reasons in the first week | Too many false insurance errors teach staff to skip the checks. |
| Have someone in the waiting room to help during the first week | Patients give up on a new process without help. |
| Stop using duplicate paper forms after one week of both | Entering everything twice doubles the work. |
| Review incomplete registrations daily | Patients who quietly give up look like no-shows. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| You only want text reminders, with no change to registration. | |
| There is no budget or owner for the EHR connection. | |
| The front desk will not change how it works. | |
| You need an inpatient EHR. | |
| Leaders will not measure check-in results. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Connect and build | 3-8 weeks. Map EHR fields, add your branding, and set up locations. |
| 2 | First location | 2-4 weeks. One site shows that registration data is good. |
| 3 | Rollout | 1-3 months. Add the remaining sites, with hardware as needed. |
| 4 | Improve | Ongoing. Fix fields, add payments, and use analytics. |
Leadership
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.