Skip to main content

Table 3 The marginal 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

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).