1. Uganda primary health care experiment ● Perceptions of quality from exit interviews ● Brief comparison with household survey

2. Uganda primary health care experiment ● Private not-for-profit (PNFP) sector are 1/3 of facilities, provide half of curative care. ● Three main Medical Bureaux. ● Memorandum of Understanding with MoH, in return for lump-sum grant (restricted). ● Majority of PNFP revenue from MoH base grant, also private donations, user fees. ● PNFPs provide better quality services, targeted to poor, more efficiently than public (Reinikka and Svensson 2002).

3. Uganda primary health care experiment ● 68 PNFP facilities randomly assigned to one of 3 experimental arms  Freedom to allocate base grant  Performance bonus (up to 11% of base grant)  Control ● Facilities agree to meet 3 performance targets of 6  OPD  Attended births  Immunizations  Antenatal visits  Malaria treatment for children  Family planning

4. Uganda primary health care experiment ● Data: 3 rounds, including retrospective data from facilities  Panels: ● 118 facility surveys ● ~1200 household surveys from hh in catchment areas  Repeated cross-sections: ● ~1500 exit interviews ● ~1000 staff interviews ● First look at exit data

5. Why are you here today?

6. Why did you come to this clinic today? (rather than to the nearest alternative)

7. How long does it take to get there?

8. How long did you spend travelling, waiting, in exam?

9. What would you pay at the alternative facility?

10. What did the doctor do during your visit?

11. What do you think about this facility?

12. How much did you pay today? (from exit survey)

13. Expenditure on health services (from household survey)

14. Share reporting non-zero expenditure

15. Distribution of “asset index”

16. How much did you pay today? (from exit survey)

17. How much did you pay today? (from restricted exit survey)

18. Expenditure on health services (from household survey)