In the most recent issue of Academic Emergency Medicine, Hausfater et al.2 describe the impact of point-of-care testing (POCT) on patient throughput, patient and provider satisfaction, and health economics. This well-designed study found a significant reduction in time-to-result (51 minutes), but no statistically significant decrease in overall length of stay (9 minutes). Direct cost savings were estimated to be €31 per length-of-stay hour. While these results are promising, the positive impact of POCT may have been underestimated by the authors. When accounting for total bed-hours saved during the study time frame, the cost savings could be extrapolated to a total of €48,872. Annual cost savings would then be €92,368. Furthermore, the authors report only on direct costs. However, opportunity costs, defined as “best alternative foregone,” must also be considered.2 In the context of emergency medicine, opportunity costs are most often discussed with overcrowding. When an emergency department (ED) is overcrowded, all treatment spaces are full, many treatment spaces are holding admitted patients, and patients waiting cannot be seen. There are opportunity costs related to unused admissions spaces, such as inpatient units or holding areas, and to underutilized ED treatment spaces, in which new patients could be seen.1-5 In this case, there are additional opportunity gains from POCT. For every patient bed-hour saved by POCT, additional patients can be evaluated and treated. The reported 9-minute reduction in overall length of stay per patient in this study translates to a total of 94,590 minutes (1,576.5 hours) saved in the 10,510 patients in the POCT arm. Based on the reported mean value of total length of stay for patients receiving POCT of 210 minutes, an additional 450 patients could have been treated during the study time frame. Over a year, upwards of 850 additional patients could have been treated. Treating these additional patients not only would provide economic benefit (reimbursement from admissions and discharges) but also would undoubtedly further improve patient and provider satisfaction and reduce risk, because presumably fewer patients would leave without being treated due to lengthy wait times. While the authors report that the implementation of POCT did not significantly reduce the length of stay of patients in the ED, this grossly understates the positive impact of POCT. As with any new initiative, opportunity losses and gains should be considered. In this case, the opportunity gains from POCT have the potential to have much more significant clinical impact than just a statistically insignificant reduction in length of stay.