CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

A whole county.
A doctor within reach.

What happens when a community makes a connection to care part of everyday life?

Chesterfield County brought Tap to its residents. In its first 18 months, the program recorded more than 15,000 patient encounters—and a story that reaches well beyond the doctor’s visit.

Explore the results Read the full case study (English PDF)

Company-reported case study · April 2026 · About the evidence

An aerial view of rural Chesterfield County: farm fields, woodland, winding roads and scattered homes. — Rural Chesterfield County from above.
USDA NAIP aerial photography · 2021

9.9/10

Patient satisfaction

Among surveyed encounters

58%

Chose Tap again

Patients who used Tap more than once

<2 min

Average response

First message to physician reply

Reported results from Tap’s first-18-month summary. Survey sample size and repeat-use denominator are not supplied. View source, page 5

Farmer Tyler Till standing in his soybean field in Orangeburg, South Carolina. — Farmer Tyler Till checks his soybean crop in Orangeburg, South Carolina. Photo: Lance Cheung / USDA.

01 / THE PLACE & ITS PEOPLE

Care has to reach
people where they are.

For a rural county, access is shaped by distance, transportation, work and the availability of a doctor.

Chesterfield’s leaders brought a new connection into the places residents already trusted: schools, EMS, local government and employers.

See what the county put in place

CHESTERFIELD AT A GLANCE

45,000residents across the county

800square miles

1hospital, in Cheraw

3,328:1patient-to-PCP ratio

County figures as presented in the April 2026 case study; underlying reference years are not listed. Source, page 3

02 / THE COMMUNITY VALUE

The benefit reaches
beyond the visit.

Behind every number is something a community cares about.

Choose a benefit. See what it means for people.

Illustrative scene of a paramedic preparing an ambulance outside its station. — Illustrative scene · EMS readiness · Image context

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC VALUE

~$700K

estimated EMS costs avoided

Ready for the call that can’t wait.

An appropriate first call for a non-emergency can help keep an ambulance available for a heart attack, a stroke, or a serious accident.

635ambulance avoidances reported

How this was estimated

The source applies state average EMS run costs to reported deployments avoided. Average run cost includes costs that may remain even when a deployment is avoided, so this estimate does not establish a cash reduction in an EMS budget.

View the report · page 9

Company-reported activity and estimates. The monetary total combines ED costs, EMS costs and wages; school days are separate. Actual budget savings depend on costs that can be avoided.

Explore your community’s possibilities

Savings matter.Being there for the person who needs emergency care most is priceless.

03 / WHO REACHED FOR CARE

Every generation
belongs in the story.

The reported age distribution spans children, working-age adults and older residents. A familiar way to reach care can serve many different moments in community life.

One way in.
Many reasons to reach out.

Reported age distribution

Children & teensUnder 1819%

Young adults18–3019%

Working-age adults31–6048%

Older adults61+14%

Shares reproduced from the company case study. The source does not specify the underlying sample size. Source, page 6

04 / WHAT THE COUNTY BUILT

A new connection.
Within the community’s existing care.

Three parts of the Chesterfield model work together.

Clinical access

A care team reached by text, audio or video, with no insurance requirement or copay in the county’s reported program.

Local connections

Prescriptions routed to local pharmacies. People who need in-person assessment referred into the local health system with clinical context.

Community partnership

County and municipal leaders, schools, EMS and employers help residents discover and use the service.

Tap operates the care program. Local leaders establish the partnership, connect the community and review its results. Terms and funding are agreed for each community.

Program model described on source page 4

READ THE EVIDENCE

A clear story.
With the context to assess it.

This page adapts Tap’s April 2026 case study for community leaders. It preserves the distinction between reported activity and estimated economic value.

Original Chesterfield case study18-page English PDF · April 2026 · 1.7 MB

What kind of evidence is this?

These results are company-reported by Tap / MD Health Pathways. The source provides summaries and high-level methods. It does not provide an independent audit, underlying encounter-level data, comparison groups or uncertainty estimates.

Use the case study as a starting point for reviewing local assumptions, measurement and program fit.

Which period do the numbers cover?

The headline outcomes are described as the first 18 months of operation. The separate monthly utilization chart is labeled September 2024–January 2026, a 17-month span. The report does not reconcile those periods or supply a complete monthly data table.

This page retains the stated headline period and does not reconstruct exact monthly encounter counts from the chart.

What does the report’s 5.2× figure mean?

The report compares $8.7M+ in estimated community value with a $1.67M launch grant: approximately 5.2 dollars of estimated value per grant dollar. The monetary total combines $3.6M in ED costs avoided, approximately $700K in EMS costs avoided and $4.4M in wage recovery.

That ratio combines benefits across residents and services. It does not establish an investment return, operating profit or cash savings for a municipality or hospital.

Which details should a community confirm?

Confirm the local access gap, clinical coverage, staffing and billing responsibilities, eligibility, funding, and the costs that can actually be avoided. Agree on baseline measures and how outcomes will be reported.

The original presentation includes time-sensitive Texas funding opportunities and May 2026 deadlines. Those historical details are not presented here as current funding advice. Its named launch-funding references also require clarification before being applied to another community.

Photographs & places

Community benefit illustrations. The ambulance, school arrival and clinical consultation scenes are illustrative images, not photographs of Chesterfield patients, providers or facilities.

Chesterfield County aerial. USDA National Agriculture Imagery Program, 2021. Fields, forests and homes in rural Chesterfield County, centered near 34.749° N, 80.200° W. USDA NAIP source and public-domain information.

South Carolina working life. Farm operator Tyler Till checks soybeans at Till Farm in Orangeburg, South Carolina, October 22, 2019. Lance Cheung / USDA. Original photograph, public domain. This regional photograph illustrates working life; it is not a Tap patient story.

Carolina Sandhills. Wildlife Drive, Pool D, Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge. Jack Culpepper / USFWS, April 6, 2006. Original photograph · CC BY 2.0. Photographs resized and cropped for display; landscape uses a contrast overlay.

YOUR COMMUNITY’S POSSIBILITIES

Put your community
in the picture.

Start with population. Explore what more access to care could mean for emergency readiness, school days and working families.

Your community

An adjustable annual planning scenario.

Community name OptionalSchool funding context

Population

residents

Households declining participation25%

Participation is applied to population as a proxy. The scenario assumes similar household size and care needs across groups.

EMS reduction among participants20%

A planning assumption applied once to participating residents’ baseline deployments.

18,750residents connected in this scenario

75%

ILLUSTRATIVE ANNUAL VALUE

A stronger community

Planning estimate

EMERGENCY READINESS

375fewer deployments per year

$450,000possible operating value

2,500 baseline deployments × 75% participation × 20% reduction

At $1,200 in assumed avoidable operating cost per deployment. This is potential resource value; actual budget savings depend on which costs can be avoided.

An ambulance ready for the person who needs it most.That part is priceless.

STUDENTS & SCHOOLS

734

school days recovered

$36,707illustrative attendance-linked funding

0.25 day per participating student, per year. Texas funding illustration; district rules determine the actual effect.

WORKING FAMILIES

2,344

workdays recovered

$234,375possible wages preserved

50% of recovered workdays assumed otherwise unpaid, at $200 per day. Resident income, separate from city revenue.

These are adjustable possibilities, not measured outcomes or guaranteed savings. School and work recovery rates are planning inputs. Chesterfield’s reported results above stay separate.

Make the assumptions your own.Use local EMS counts, student numbers, wages and funding rules.

EMS operations

Annual deployments per 1,000 residents100 is an illustrative starting point, not a national benchmark.Your actual annual deploymentsOptional. Replaces the population-based estimate; use the same geographic service area.Avoidable cost per deployment ($)Use costs your agency can actually avoid. Fixed costs and changes in collections are not modeled.

School attendance

School-age share of population (%)15.66% is the 2025 national ages 5–17 share, a proxy for students rather than local enrollment.Local resident student countOptional. Replaces the age proxy; participation is applied afterward.Recovered days per student / year0.25 is illustrative; it does not convert chronic-absence percentages into days.Funding per recovered day ($)$50 is a Texas planning illustration, not a fixed payment per day.

Working residents

Employed share of population (%)50% is an illustrative proxy, not a measured local employment rate.Local employed resident countOptional. Count employed residents, not jobs located in the city.Recovered days per worker / year0.25 is illustrative. Recovery must support a medically appropriate return to work.Average daily wages ($)Illustrative gross daily wages; adjust to local circumstances.Otherwise unpaid workdays (%)Only this share of recovered days contributes to the wages estimate.

How to read this scenario

All local counts cover the same service area, before participation. The default 25% household decline rate is used as a population proxy. With 75% participation and a 20% reduction among participants, the modeled change is 15% of all baseline deployments.

People and care episodes can overlap. EMS operating value, school funding and wages belong to different groups, so they are shown separately. This is not a net fiscal return or a forecast of local spending.

The assumed 20% reduction here is distinct from the reported Ferris change in non-emergent runs. Your agency’s definitions, actual demand and cost structure determine the right local inputs.

U.S. Census Bureau, July 1, 2025 national age estimates CMS ambulance cost study, fixed and variable costs Texas Education Agency, Summary of Finances NEMSIS 2024 Annual Report, EMS activation definitions

Bring your local numbers. Build a plan your team can evaluate.

Talk through your community’s possibilities

Colorful sky reflected in Pool D at Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge.

THE NEXT COMMUNITY HAS ITS OWN STORY

What could a connection
like this mean for yours?

Bring your community’s questions, EMS and school priorities, and billing team. We’ll work through the care model, local responsibilities and the outcomes worth measuring.

Start your community’s conversation Explore the full community program

Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge · Jack Culpepper / USFWS