Table 5.

Effect of the policy by income groups

	50% poorest			50% richest
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Panel A: % seeking care
Estimated effect	−0.011	0.031	0.035	−0.022	0.013	0.009
CI	[−0.31, 0.32]	[−0.31, 0.32]	[−0.31, 0.32]	[−0.182, 0.149]	[−0.182, 0.149]	[−0.182, 0.149]
N treated	53	54	51	51	48	51
N placebo	18	16	15	18	16	15
Panel B: % choosing government or mission provider
Estimated effect	0.007	0.059	0.064	0.034	0.181	0.153
CI	[−0.11, 0.08]	[−0.11, 0.05]	[−0.10, 0.05]	[−0.22, 0.16]	[−0.22, 0.15]	[−0.16, 0.15]
N treated	47	47	47	50	50	49
N placebo	17	15	14	18	16	15
Panel C: Ln(oop)
Estimated effect	−1.573	−1.694	−1.720	−2.298	−2.413	−2.624
% change	−79%	−82%	−82%	−90%	−91%	−93%
CI	[−2.59, 3.08]	[−2.05, 3.08]	[−2.05, 3.08]	[−2.01, 1.79]	[−2.01, 1.79]	[−2.01, 1.79]
N treated	49	50	50	50	50	51
N placebo	18	16	15	17	15	14
Panel D: % buying drugs in the private sector
Estimated effect	0.007	0.009	0.010	−0.261	−0.271	−0.120
CI	[−0.08, 0.12]	[−0.08, 0.12]	[−0.08, 0.12]	[−0.32, 0.16]	[−0.31, 0.16]	[−0.31, 0.11]
N treated	52	49	47	45	49	45
N placebo	18	16	15	18	16	15

Note. Effects of the policy are reported in bold and percentage change are reported in italics. The 90% CI in brackets reports the 5th and 95th percentile of the placebo test distribution. Specifications (1) and (4) are estimated using all 18 urban districts as control districts. Specifications (2) and (5) exclude two districts where more than 50% of the population was reported to have benefited from free care in 2006. Specifications (3) and (6) exclude the previous two districts and a third one where more than 10% of the population sought care in a rural district in 1998.