Iaudit a lot of healthcare software homepages, and almost none of them tell you what the product costs.
ChartPath’s does. It’s $329 a month with free implementation and free training, and the page sets that beside what other EHRs charge. The table even has two rows where ChartPath is no cheaper than anyone else. Dictation costs the same on both sides, and the certification is the same too. That makes the other rows, where ChartPath is more affordable, easier to believe.
The headline is just as direct. It says the product is for physician practices that round in skilled nursing and long-term care. If that’s your job, you know you’re in the right place.
Further down, five words sum up the whole business: “Chart better. Get paid faster.” Another sentence names a real irritation, which is rounding at several facilities and logging into a different system at each one.
So I liked this page. It knows who it’s for, and it never reaches for a big idea and then backs away from it.
My audit still scored it a C-minus. I think that grade overstates the damage, and the rest of this post explains why.
It asks me to take its word
The page makes a lot of claims. It says charting gets 30% faster, billing revenue goes up 3% and doctors are 99% satisfied. It calls the product the best EHR for its market, and it calls the support world-class.
I went looking for the customer who backs any of that up, and the homepage doesn’t have one. I couldn’t find a name, a logo or a quote in the main content.
I also looked for a source behind the three percentages. I checked the About page, the EHR page, the Support page and several others, and none of them explains where the numbers came from.
That matters more in this market than in most. ChartPath sells documentation to people who get audited for a living. Those buyers are trained to ask where a number came from.
Every one of those claims is waiting for a customer to say it. And it turns out the customers already have.
The customer stories exist, but there’s a gate in front of them
ChartPath has customer stories. They sit under the Resources menu, and nothing in the main content of the homepage links to them.
There are two case studies. To read either one in full, I have to fill in seven fields, including my phone number, my job title and the EMR I use today.
The same form sits in front of the guides, and I think that explains it. I doubt anyone decided to hide the customers. The stories got filed with the ebooks, and the ebooks have a form.
I get why the form is there. A download looks like interest, and sales gets a name to call. But a form can’t tell a buyer from a student, a job hunter or a competitor doing homework. And a customer story is the proof. The buyer who needs it most isn’t ready to hand over a phone number yet.
The odd part is that the story highlights are already public. The page in front of one form says Adfinitas Health has about 75 providers covering 60 to 70 facilities. The page in front of the other carries a line from the VP of Operations at MDB Health, who says ChartPath has
“…definitely the best support of any EHR I’ve worked with.”
That’s the world-class support claim with someone’s name and title attached.
There’s more on the About page. At the very bottom, the COO of Eventus WholeHealth says they went looking for an EHR that “understood our place” and found ChartPath. The same page says the Director of Implementation is a nurse practitioner who still practices part-time in a skilled nursing facility. So the person who sets up your EHR still sees patients in a building like yours.
The names, the scale and the best quote are all there, but a first-time visitor probably won’t ever see them.
Two numbers that don’t match
The first is concerning support. A counter near the top of the homepage says the wait time for support is zero. Further down the same page, the comparison table says ChartPath’s support responds in under an hour. And the Support page says emails get a reply within two business hours and phone calls get a callback within 15 minutes.
All three answers are good and that last one is the most believable, because it’s specific. But a prospect who sees three versions might second guess all of them.
The second is the price. The homepage says $329 a month. The first button on the homepage opens the EHR page, and that page lists three tiers at $225, $299 and $450 per provider per month.
There may be a simple explanation but the prospect who clicks that button doesn’t have it yet.
I’d fix these two first. The price table is the best thing on the homepage, and a mismatch one click away shouldn’t be allowed to undercut it.
The company sounds better after you dig a bit
The homepage is the stiffest page on the site. The EHR page sounds like a living, breathing person wrote it.
That page jokes that the product runs in “any modern browser, on a tablet and maybe even on a smart microwave.” It promises you won’t “lose a whole chart when your toddler spills milk on the keyboard.” And it says a human being in Austin, Texas will answer when you call.
I was pleasantly surprised to see this because I know from experience how much healthtech corporations try to avoid sounding less than professional or academic 100% of the time. I’d want to buy from a company with a sense of humour that answers its own phones, but the homepage doesn’t have any of that.
There’s a belief on the homepage too, down in the About block. It says “we serve medical practices, who serve the patients that need them most.” That’s a point of view. The people in nursing homes need a doctor more than almost anyone, and the clinicians who go to them deserve their time back. On the page, that idea trails behind a sentence about efficiency and profitability. There’s that corporate jargon overshadowing what could have been something powerfully empathetic.
The homepage visuals are where that corporate fear of personality really shines. The page shows product screens, some icons and one photo of a laptop with a stethoscope beside it. There’s not a single person in any of them. A product designed for clinicians who spend their days going from one nursing home to the next, who serve patients that need them most, shows none of that. Instead, it shows basically nothing. The software recording in the hero is too small to see and looks like every other EHR out there, the icons are generic, and there’s a “click to enlarge” option that really needs some level of explanation other than just “look at this image of probably not what our software actually looks like.”
I want to see someone like me doing the work with a smile – or maybe not even a smile, but a real-life scenario that closely resembles my desired future state. That’s the job of a homepage, a sales deck, a demo, whatever. Help me picture my better tomorrow from using your product today.
I tested my own claim on AI, and I was only half right
On LinkedIn this week I said forms on ChartPaths website is keeping their best proof away from the AI their prospect asks first. Then I tested it.
I started with the question someone in the market asks first: which EHRs fit a practice that rounds in nursing homes? I asked three different AI tools, and ChartPath made the list in all of them. One answer even gave it and a competitor the same description, with the same features for both.
That’s when a buyer’s questions change. She already believes the product does the job, so now she wants to know if it’s safe to pick. Will they look after me? Can they handle a group my size?
So I asked those two next.
On support, the AI came back with five-star ratings from review sites and a handful of customer quotes. It also gave me the support promise in plain numbers, the same two business hours and 15 minutes from the Support page.
Perfect.
On size, I asked about a group with around 75 providers. It said yes, and it named Adfinitas Health and its 60 to 70 facilities.
Fantastic.
So the AI found the proof. The form didn’t stop it, because the highlights of those stories sit in front of the form.
But what I found the most interesting is the AI made a stronger case for ChartPath than the ChartPath homepage does. It had a named customer, real ratings and a specific promise.
So this brings me to one caution for marketing teams: The support answer leaned on review sites, and it included the one bad review with the good ones. You don’t get to pick what the AI quotes, but you do pick what’s on your homepage and that’s more important because that’s where prospects go AFTER the AI responds.
What I’d move
I ran my standard audit on the site that weighs a homepage against my hierarchy of messaging, and this is why I think the C-minus grade overstates the damage. Almost nothing in what I’m suggesting below needs new writing. The copy is there, approved and attributed, it just needs to be better aligned with where a prospect needs to see it first.
- Put Adfinitas Health, MDB Health and Eventus WholeHealth on the homepage by name.
- Put a named customer beside each number, or say where the number came from.
- Pick one answer on support and one on price, and use them everywhere. The Support page’s wording is the one I’d keep.
- Take the form off every case study, every webinar, every guide, every ebook – make it all easily accessible.
- Bring the EHR page’s voice and the About block’s belief up to the top, and show some people.
That leaves one question only ChartPath can answer. The homepage works for the practice owner with a spreadsheet open, comparing monthly costs. It does less for the director of a 75-provider group who needs to see a group her size. And it does less for the clinician who’d pick the vendor that thinks about nursing home patients the way she does.
So is the homepage for the buyer who’s pricing, or the buyer who’s choosing?
For reference and transparency, I used Google Gemini, Brave Leo, and Claude to answer my search questions that I described in this post.
