Abstract Introduction/Objective Testing platforms to detect COVID-19 infection include antigen-based point of care (POC) testing and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect viral ribonucleic acid (RNA). RT-PCR, generally considered the gold standard for diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, is capable of being used for mass population screening but may be more expensive. Alternatively, antigen based POC testing can not only produce results rapidly (15 minutes on some assays) but also may be less expensive. This reduced cost provides an argument that it may be economical to use POC testing for mass surveillance in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients while reserving the more expensive gold standard RT-PCR testing for sensitivity for hospitalized and more significantly at risk or ill patients. However, cost modeling between the two modalities for mass screening is sparse, particularly for studies including the Veteran Affairs system that may have different costs from the general community retail pricing. Methods/Case Report Cost information reviewed at the regional VAMC included costs for the Alinity-m SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay (Abbott, Chicago IL), the Cepheid Xpert-Xpress-CoV-2-Flu-RSV-Plus RT-PCR assay (Cepheid, Sunnyvale CA), and the BinaxNOW POC antigen-based assay (Abbott, Chicago IL). The median cost of RT-PCR testing in the community was obtained from the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker. Publicly available quoted prices for selected POC assays in the community were reviewed for comparison. Results (if a Case Study enter NA) Test costs at the regional VAMC was $28.34 (Alinity-m), $68 (Cepheid), and $5 (BinaxNOW). These costs did not include technologist time or standard laboratory consumables that would be part of the standard overhead costs of running the laboratory. The median community RT-PCR assay price per the Peterson- KFF Health System Tracker was $148, and the Abbott’s quoted BinaxNOW price was $25. POC testing cost was 82% less than the cheapest RT-PCR assay available at the regional VAMC. This trend in being significantly cheaper holds true in the community whereby BinaxNOW testing was 83% cheaper. Publicly available quoted prices from other selected POC assays confirm this trend. Conclusion For a mass surveillance screening program, the use of POC assays would result in significant cost savings.