Regional Hospital: Satellite Clinic or Telehealth Expansion
A regional hospital system must choose between two ways to reduce emergency department crowding. Option A would open a satellite urgent care clinic 7 miles from the main campus, at a capital cost of $3.4 million, projected to divert 18% of low-acuity ED visits; annual operating cost is $1.2 million. Option B would expand telehealth urgent care, at a capital cost of $900,000, projected to divert 11% of low-acuity visits; annual operating cost is $600,000. The ED currently has a 47-minute average wait and a 6.2% left-without-being-seen rate. The satellite clinic would need 14 months to open because of zoning; telehealth could launch in 4 months. The system's payer mix is 58% Medicaid, and telehealth reimbursement for Medicaid patients is uncertain. A community needs assessment found that 31% of the county lacks reliable broadband.
1. Recommend one option and justify it with at least two constraints from the setup.
Read the worked answer
I would recommend Option B, telehealth expansion, because it addresses the immediate crowding problem at a fraction of the capital cost and can launch before the satellite clinic would even finish zoning. Option B costs $900,000 in capital and $600,000 annually, compared with $3.4 million and $1.2 million for Option A. The ED's 47-minute wait and 6.2% left-without-being-seen rate are current harms; a 14-month delay means Option A cannot reduce them until well after the next budget cycle. The projected diversion is lower, 11% versus 18%, but the lower capital cost leaves room to add a smaller in-person site later or to subsidize broadband access. The Medicaid reimbursement uncertainty is real, but it affects both options' revenue, not just telehealth. The system should launch telehealth now and use the savings to plan a clinic with better data.
2. How should the system weigh the 31% broadband gap against the 14-month zoning delay?
Read the worked answer
The broadband gap should be treated as a limit on who can use telehealth, not as a reason to delay both options. If 31% of the county lacks reliable broadband, the 11% diversion estimate may be too high for the population that most needs urgent care, especially older and lower-income patients. But the same assessment likely shows that the satellite clinic's 7-mile distance is a barrier for a different group: patients without a car or with limited time off work. The system should map the two gaps. If broadband gaps are concentrated in the northern county and the satellite site is also there, Option A's 18% diversion may be more equitable. If broadband gaps are spread thinly, telehealth plus a broadband-navigation hotline and telephone-only visits could reach more people sooner. The zoning delay is fixed; the broadband gap can be mitigated with partnerships and subsidies.
3. What would make Option B the better choice?
Read the worked answer
Option B would be better if three conditions held: Medicaid reimburses telehealth visits at or near in-person rates, the system can identify and assist the 31% without reliable broadband, and the 11% diversion estimate is conservative. A pilot in four months could test all three. If telehealth visits by Medicaid patients were reimbursed at, say, 80% of in-person rates and the no-show rate fell, the lower capital cost and faster launch would dominate. But if reimbursement were denied for most Medicaid telehealth visits, or if the broadband gap meant the service reached mostly commercially insured patients, Option B would divert fewer low-acuity visits than promised. The system should set a decision rule: proceed with B only if the pilot diverts at least 8% of low-acuity visits and breaks even on Medicaid volume.