HEALTH CARE

Spending on pharmaceuticals
Help
To ensure comparability, observed values are transformed into SGI scores on a scale from 1 to 10. The lowest value translates into score 1, the best value into score 10. Remaining values are transformed according to the original data distribution.
#
Value
Score
1Norway7.6
10.00
 
2Luxembourg8.4
9.70
 
3Denmark8.6
9.63
 
4New Zealand9.4
9.33
 
5Switzerland10.3
8.99
 
6Netherlands11.5
8.54
 
7UK11.8
8.43
 
8USA11.9
8.39
 
9Sweden13.2
7.90
 
10Austria13.3
7.86
 
11Iceland13.9
7.64
 
12Australia14.3
7.49
 
13Finland14.4
7.45
 
14Germany15.1
7.19
 
15Belgium16.4
6.70
 
15France16.4
6.70
 
17Canada17.2
6.40
 
18Chile17.3
6.36
 
18Ireland17.3
6.36
 
20Italy18.4
5.95
 
21Japan20.1
5.31
 
22Czech Rep.20.4
5.20
 
23Spain20.5
5.16
 
24Portugal21.8
4.68
 
25Poland22.6
4.38
 
26South Korea23.9
3.89
 
27Greece24.8
3.55
 
28Turkey26.6
2.88
 
29Slovakia28.1
2.31
 
30Mexico28.3
2.24
 
31Hungary31.6
1.00
 
10
Key concepts
 
Health-care systems are struggling to balance the demands of inclusiveness, aging populations and rising costs. Reforms are underway across the OECD, triggering often-rancorous political debate but as yet having sporadic success with cost containment.

Goals are nevertheless clear: Public health care policies should aim at providing high-quality health care for the largest possible share of the population, at the lowest possible costs. Of the three criteria – quality, inclusiveness and cost efficiency – efficiency should be given less weight if the first two criteria can be considered fulfilled.

In most countries today, there is a combination of public and private health care systems. Preventative care is increasingly vital as populations age and advances in medical technology translate into higher costs.
Performance comparison
Help
Use drop-down menus for selections. In all cases, higher scores reflect better performance.
Please download the Flash-PlugIn.