Table 6. Incremental cost–effectiveness ratios of three methods of health-care financing in the results-based financing programme, Zambia, April 2012 to June 2014.

Group comparisons	Incremental cost–effectiveness ratios, mid-point (lower-upper bounds)
	Cost per life saved, quality unadjusted, US$	Cost per QALY gained, quality unadjusted, US$	Cost per life saved, quality adjusted, US$	Cost per QALY gained, quality adjusted, US$
Results-based financing versus input-based financing	38 857 (32 744–52 351)	1 642 (1 384–2 214)	31 336 (26 983–40 853)	1 324 (1 141–1 727)
Results-based financing versus control	23 666 (21 324–26 643)	999 (900–1 126)	19 161 (17 546–21 177)	809 (741–895)
Input-based financing versus control	12 040 (9 943–15 663)	508 (419–662)	9 999 (8 232–12 081)	413 (348–510)

QALY: quality-adjusted life year; US$: United States dollars.

Notes: Results-based financing facilities received increased funding tied to performance on pre-agreed indicators; input-based financing facilities received increased funding not tied to performance; control facilities were under the usual funding system without additional financing in Zambia. The quality-adjusted results considered the impact of the programme on quality of care.