are consistent, and we believe that the level changes can be explained by a country level shock affecting vaccine availability that affected the facility, but not the household data.

Facility-level provision of the third dose of polio vaccine decreased by approximately five vaccines per month in the control group (Table 4, column 6). There was an increase of 4.583 final polio vaccinations relative to the control group in the PBF group, and this difference was statistically significant (p=0.035). The coefficient on the interaction term was also positive in the additional financing group but the difference was not statistically significant, and there was no difference between the control and the additional supervision groups. There was a large and statistically significant decline in meningitis vaccination provision over the study period (-45.970, p-value < 0.001). Of the three treatment groups, only the change in the additional financing group was statistically different from the control group (21.931, p-value=0.050). Finally, in the control group measles vaccine provision declined by an average of approximately four children per month over the study period. There was no difference between the change observed in the control group, and the changes in the treatment groups (Table 4, column 8).

Facility register data also contained data documenting facility provision of HIV-related services (Table 4, columns 9 – 11). We found a large and statistically significant effect of both PBF and additional financing on HIV testing. An average of 61 more patients were tested for HIV in PBF facilities than control facilities, and 51 more patients were tested monthly in the additional financing arm compared to the control. There was very little change in HIV testing in the additional supervision group, and the effect of PBF was greater than the effect of additional supervision. Though there was a small increase in PMTCT in all of the treatment groups relative to the full control, none of these differences were statistically significant, and there was no difference between the effect of PBF and the other treatment groups. Similarly, there was no difference in the change in ART provision between the treatment groups and the full control.

# HOUSEHOLD SURVEY UTILIZATION RESULTS

<mark>Table 5 displays the difference-in-differences regression results for the study outcomes related to health care received during pregnancy as assessed in the household survey interviewing women with recent pregnancies or birth experiences. In this table, the post indicator can be interpreted as the change in the outcome over the study period in the control group. Each of the interaction terms can be interpreted as the difference between the change observed in each treatment group respectively compared to the change in the control group. Table 5 shows that overall few treatment effects were observed for study outcomes related to care during pregnancy in the household survey data. Among women who had been pregnant in the 24 months before the survey, there was an overall increase of approximately five percentage points in delivery with a skilled birth attendant. There was no difference between the control group and the PBF group, or the group that received additional financing in the change in skilled delivery over the study period. However, skilled delivery declined (-0.050*, p-value = 0.087) in the group receiving only improved supervision</mark> relative to the control group.

<mark>The change between 2012 and 2015 in the percentage of women who received at least two antenatal care visits was not statistically significant in the control group. Similar to delivery care, there was no difference between the change in the control group and the PBF and additional financing groups but the change among women in the improved supervision group was less than</mark> 14