Skip to main content

Table 3 The marginal 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 97,203 59 52 3,739 18.8
   (67, 52) (56, 43) (1,736, 2,261) (20.2,15.5)
Three SSF 97,203 58 1 97,203 0.4
   (67, 52) (1, 1) (97,203, 97,203) (0.4, 0.4)
Four SSF 97,203 58 1 97,203 0.4
   (67, 52) (1, 0.5) (97,203, 194,406) (0.4, 0.2)
Five SSF 97,203 58 1 97,203 0.4
   (67, 52) (1, 0.5) (97,203, 194,406) (0.4, 0.2)
Six SSF 97,203 57 1 97,203 0.4
   (66, 52) (1, 0.5) (97,203, 194,406) (0.4, 0.2)
Seven SSF 97,203 57 1 97,203 0.4
   (66, 52) (1, 0.5) (97,203, 194,406) (0.4, 0.2)
  1. The numbers in parentheses represent the results of the sensitivity analysis (90% sharing rate, 70% sharing rate).