Skip to main content

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

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).