Table 5.

Implementation costs of policy options in England and Wales^*†‡

Policy option	Total cost (£)	Total cancers detected	Total WTE radiologists	Total WTE radiographers
From baseline (one view, double reading, recall if one reader suggests) to two views, double reading (recall if one reader suggests)	769 022	117	2.3	9.2
From baseline (one view, double reading, consensus) to two views, double reading (consensus)	446 298	66	1.4	4.2
From baseline (one view, double reading, arbitration) to two views, double reading (arbitration)	257 544	39	0.6	1.8
From baseline (one view, double reading, complex) to two views, double reading (complex)§	844 177	127	2.3	9.2
From baseline (one view, single reading) to two views, double reading (arbitration)¶	593 588	348	6.8	5.1
Total implementation costs of two view policies above	2 910 629	697	13.4	29.5
Alternative policy options from baseline of one view, single reading to:
one view, double reading (arbitration)	59 091	281	3.4	0
one view, double reading (consensus)	64 166	187	3.4	0
two views, single reading**	475 406	161	1.7	5.1

^*Based on number of programmes operating a policy and number of women screened under each policy in 1996/-7 (table 1). 

^†As baseline analysis assumes no change in recall rate, no savings in assessment are included. 

^‡Total costs divided by total cancers detected give cost effectiveness ratios of similar magnitude as those presented in tables 2–4. Any differences are due to rounding of number of cancers detected in this table. 

^§Assumed to cost same as double reading (arbitration) and be as effective as other double reading policies. 

^¶Used as it is most efficient option for baseline of one view single reading. 

^**Inefficient option (table 3). 

WTE=whole time equivalent.