Table 4 Cost-effectiveness results comparing CIM with status quo
From: Is cycle network expansion cost-effective? A health economic evaluation of cycling in Oslo
CIM | Status quo | CIM | Incremental | ICER | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cost | QALY | Cost | QALY | ΔCost($) | ΔQALY | ($/QALY) | |
Base case | 6875 | 15.240 | 7291 | 15.259 | 416 | 0.019 | 22,350 |
Change cycle share | |||||||
Predicted cycle share (11.5%) | 6875 | 15.240 | 7220 | 15.273 | 345 | 0.033 | 10,292 |
Scenario 2 (15%) | 6875 | 15.240 | 7188 | 15.297 | 313 | 0.057 | 5533 |
Scenario 3 (20%) | 6875 | 15.240 | 7119 | 15.328 | 244 | 0.088 | 2766 |
Scenario 4 (25%) | 6875 | 15.240 | 7060 | 15.359 | 185 | 0.119 | 1548 |
Time horizon | |||||||
Scenario 5 (20 years) | 4155 | 13.198 | 4589 | 13.213 | 434 | 0.015 | 27,967 |
Scenario 6 (30 years) | 10,366 | 16.864 | 10,760 | 16.885 | 394 | 0.021 | 18,536 |
Scenario 7 (35 years) | 14,420 | 18.139 | 14,782 | 18.163 | 362 | 0.024 | 15,366 |
Scenario 8 (40 years) | 18,788 | 19.121 | 19,110 | 19.147 | 323 | 0.026 | 12,368 |