Skip to main content

Table 2 The cumulative cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of SSF in Vancouver using Jacobs et al.’s [30] model

From: A cost-benefit/cost-effectiveness analysis of an unsanctioned supervised smoking facility in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, Canada

Variables

Annual cost of operation ($)

Sharing rate (%)

# of HCV averted

Cost-effectiveness ratio HCV ($)

Cost-benefit ratio HCV

Post SSF

97,203

69

57

1,705

20.6

  

(78, 60)

(65, 50)

(1,495, 1,944)

(23.5, 18.1)

Two SSF

194,406

59

109

1,784

19.7

  

(67, 52)

(121, 93)

(1,607, 2,090)

(21.9, 16.8)

Three SSF

291,609

58

110

2,651

13.3

  

(67, 52)

(121, 94)

(2,410, 3,102)

(14.6, 11.3)

Four SSF

388,812

58

111

3,503

10

  

(67, 52)

(122, 94)

(3,187, 4,136)

(11, 8.5)

Five SSF

486,015

58

112

4,339

8.1

  

(67, 52)

(123, 95)

(3,951, 5,116)

(8.9, 6.9)

Six SSF

583,218

57

113

5,161

6.8

  

(66, 52)

(124, 95)

(4,703, 6,139)

(7.5, 5.7)

Seven SSF

680,421

57

114

5,969

5.9

  

(66, 52)

(124, 96)

(5,487, 7,088)

(6.4, 5)

  1. The numbers in parentheses represent the results of the sensitivity analysis (90% sharing rate, 70% sharing rate).