Southerland et al. 1 describe a business model for staffing and equipment in a Level 1 accredited, academic geriatric emergency department (GED). The authors described program costs, including staff salaries for a geriatric nurse practitioner, pharmacist, and physical and occupational therapists. Equipment costs were mobility aids, delirium aids, sensory aids, and personal care items. Reimbursement was the potential increase in billing from the addition of new staff. According to the authors, the additional GED staff become "self-sustaining" at specific workload thresholds. This meant that their costs would equal their potential billings at 7.1 daily consultations for the geriatric nurse practitioner, 7.7 daily medication reconciliations for the ED pharmacist, and 5.7 and 4.6 daily evaluations by physical and occupational therapists, respectively. Equipment costs were <$5,000. The authors also assessed how their GED impacted ED metrics and patient safety, finding no impact overall on ED throughput (e.g., prolonged lengths of stay), decisions to admit, or ED returns. However, fall rates in the ED and ED observation unit declined by about 25%. From the fall reductions, they estimated cost savings of~$80,000. This paper was written for a singular purpose: to help justify hospital investment in creating a GED. It involves return on investment (ROI), a common business term infrequently invoked in clinical circles. Financial ROI is defined as the financial gain (or loss) that may be realized through starting a new program. In the current environment, ROI is given inadequate