This chapter analyses a core set of indicators on health and health systems. Country dashboards shed light on how countries compare across five dimensions: health status, non-medical determinants and risk factors, access, quality, and health system capacity and resources. Cross-cutting dimensions of health system performance – efficiency, equity, sustainability and resilience – are also explored.
Health at a Glance 2025
OECD Indicators
Abstract
Health indicators offer an “at a glance” perspective on how healthy populations are, and how well health systems perform. This chapter provides a comparative overview of OECD countries across core indicators, organised around five dimensions of health and health systems (Table 1.1). Indicators are selected based on how relevant and actionable they are from a policy perspective, as well as the more practical consideration of data availability across countries.
Note: Avoidable hospital admissions cover asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure and diabetes. See the chapters listed in the table for information on definition and comparability issues for each of these indicators, and the weblink to metadata in the “Readers’ Guide”.
Based on these indicators, country dashboards are produced. These compare a country’s performance to that of other countries and to the OECD average. Comparisons are made based on the latest year available. For most indicators this refers to 2023, or to the nearest year if 2023 data are not available for a given country.
Country classification for each indicator is into one of the following three colour-coded groups:
blue when the country’s performance is close to the OECD average
green when the country’s performance is considerably better than the OECD average
red when the country’s performance is considerably worse than the OECD average.
The exception to this grouping is the dashboard on health system capacity and resources, where indicators cannot be easily classified as showing better or worse performance. Here, lighter and darker shades of blue signal whether a country has considerably less or more of a given healthcare resource than the OECD average.
The chapter also provides a high-level summary of cross-cutting dimensions of health system performance. This includes exploring cross-country associations between health spending and health outcomes, access, and quality of care. Quadrant charts illustrate simple associations (not causal relationships) between how much countries spend on health and how effectively health systems function. Figure 1.1 shows the interpretation of each quadrant, taking health outcome variables as an example. Further information on the methodology, interpretation and use of country dashboards and quadrant charts is provided in the boxed text. A high-level summary of other efficiency indicators, alongside indicators for equity, sustainability, and resilience, is also provided. Such dimensions are in line with the renewed OECD Health System Performance Framework (OECD, 2024[1]).
Note that analysis in this chapter does not indicate which countries have the best-performing health systems, particularly as only a subset of the many indicators in Health at a Glance are included here. Rather, the analysis identifies some relative strengths and weaknesses. This can help policymakers determine priority action areas for their country, with subsequent chapters in Health at a Glance providing a more detailed suite of indicators, organised by topic area.
Country dashboards
The classification of countries as being close to, better or worse than the OECD average is based on an indicator’s standard deviation (a common statistical measure of dispersion). Countries are classified as “close to the OECD average” (blue) whenever the value for an indicator is within one standard deviation from the OECD average for the latest year. Such a classification reflects relative position across countries, but not performance against absolute benchmarks. Particularly large outliers (larger than three standard deviations) are excluded from calculations of the standard deviation to avoid statistical distortions.
For a typical indicator, about 65% of countries will be close to the OECD average, with the remaining 35% performing significantly better (green) or worse (red). When the number of countries that are close to the OECD average is higher (lower), it means that cross-country variation is relatively low (high) for that indicator. Changes over time by country are also indicated in the dashboard.
Quadrant charts
Quadrant charts plot health expenditure per capita against another indicator of interest (on health outcomes, access and quality of care). They show the percentage difference of each indicator compared to the OECD average. The centre of each quadrant chart is the OECD average. Data from the latest available year are used. A limitation is that lagged effects are not considered – for example, it may take some years before higher health spending translates into longer life expectancy.
Four indicators reflect core aspects of both the quality and quantity of life. Life expectancy is a key indicator for the overall health of a population; avoidable mortality focusses on premature deaths that could have been prevented or treated. Diabetes prevalence shows morbidity for a major chronic condition; self-rated health offers a more holistic measure of mental and physical health. Figure 1.2 presents a snapshot of health status across OECD countries, and Table 1.2 provides more detailed country comparisons.
Note: Data for Chronic disease morbidity for 2022. Largest improvement shows countries with largest changes in absolute value over ten years (% change in brackets); 2010‑2023 (LE), 2013‑2023 (Avoidable mortality), 2012‑2022 (Chronic disease morbidity) and 2014‑2024 (Self-rated health).
Source: OECD Health Statistics 2025; WHO Global Health Observatory 2024.
Switzerland, Japan, Spain and Israel lead a large group of 27 OECD countries in which life expectancy at birth exceeded 80 years in 2023. Mexico and Latvia had the lowest life expectancy, at less than 76 years. While life expectancy often fell during the pandemic, the latest data show signs of a subsequent recovery. However, life expectancy in 2023 was still below pre‑pandemic levels in 13 OECD countries.
Avoidable mortality rates (from preventable and treatable causes) were lowest in Switzerland and Luxembourg, where fewer than 130 per 100 000 people died prematurely. Colombia, Mexico and Latvia had the highest avoidable mortality rates, at over 400 premature deaths per 100 000 people. The avoidable mortality rate for men (303 deaths per 100 000) was double that of women (149 per 100 000), on average across OECD counties.
Diabetes prevalence in 2022 was highest in Costa Rica, Türkiye, Mexico and Chile, with 14% or more of adults living with diabetes (data age‑standardised to the world population). They were lowest in Denmark, France and Spain, at under 4%. Prevalence rates have increased in most OECD countries, but have fallen in Mexico, Spain, France and Israel. Such upward trends are due in part to rising rates of obesity and physical inactivity.
Almost 8% of adults considered themselves to be in poor health in 2024, on average across OECD countries. This ranged from over 13% in Japan and Latvia, to under 3% in New Zealand and Colombia. However, socio-cultural differences, the share of older people and differences in survey design affect cross-country comparability. People with lower incomes are generally less positive about their health than people on higher incomes in all OECD countries.
Investing more in health systems contributes to gains in health outcomes by offering more accessible and higher-quality care. Differences in risk factors such as smoking, alcohol and obesity also explain cross-country variation in health outcomes. Social determinants of health matter too – notably income levels, better education and improved living environments.
Better than the OECD average.
Close to the OECD average.
Worse than the OECD average.
1. 2024 data for Chile, Colombia and Mexico, 2022 data for Türkiye.
2. 2020‑2022 data for Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States.
3. 2019‑2023 data for Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Note: The symbol + indicates an improvement over time, - a deterioration over time, = no change. Costa Rica is excluded from the standard deviation calculation for diabetes prevalence.
Smoking, alcohol consumption and obesity are the three major individual risk factors for non-communicable diseases, contributing to a large share of worldwide deaths. Air pollution is also a critical environmental determinant of health. Figure 1.3 presents a snapshot of these indicators across OECD countries, and Table 1.3 provides more detailed country comparisons.
Note: For obesity, values are self-reported except if marked with an asterisk when measured data are used. Data for air pollution for 2020. Largest improvement shows countries with largest changes in absolute value over the past decade (% change in brackets); 2013‑2023 (Smoking, Alcohol, Obesity), 2010‑2020 (Air pollution).
Source: OECD Health Statistics 2025; OECD Environment Statistics 2025.
Smoking causes multiple diseases, including cancers, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Across OECD countries, 14.8% of people aged 15 or older smoked daily in 2023. The proportion of daily smokers was highest in Türkiye, Hungary and Greece, where at least one in four people smoked daily. Iceland and Costa Rica had the lowest rates (6% or less) of daily smokers. Over the past decade, smoking rates declined in most countries, with a 26% average reduction since 2013.
Alcohol use is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide, particularly among people of working age. Measured through sales data, Latvia and Portugal reported the highest levels of consumption in 2023 (above 11.5 litres of pure alcohol per person per year). Average consumption was lowest in Türkiye, Israel, Costa Rica and Colombia (under 5 litres). Average consumption has fallen in most countries since 2013. Still, harmful drinking is a concern among certain population groups, and about one in four adults reported heavy episodic drinking at least monthly in the past year.
Obesity is a major risk factor for many chronic conditions, including diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and cancer. On average in 2023, 19% of the population was obese, and 54% of the population was overweight or obese (based on self-reported data). Obesity rates were highest in Mexico, the United States and New Zealand, and lowest in Japan and Korea (based on a combination of self-reported and measured data). Caution should be used when comparing countries with reporting differences, however, since obesity rates are generally higher when using measured data.
Air pollution is not only a major environmental threat but also causes a wide range of adverse health outcomes. OECD projections estimate that ambient (outdoor) air pollution may cause 6‑9 million premature deaths a year worldwide by 2060. On average across OECD countries, populations were exposed to 11.2 microgrammes of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) per cubic metre in 2020. Exposure to ambient air pollution has declined over time in most countries. But only one country, Finland, has levels of PM2.5 pollution below the WHO Air Quality Guidelines of 5μg per m3.
Better than the OECD average.
Close to the OECD average.
Worse than the OECD average.
1. 2024 data for Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway. 2019‑2022 data for Australia, Austria, Chile, Colombia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Switzerland and Türkiye.
2. 2024 data for Ireland, Norway and Mexico. 2020‑2022 data for Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and the United States.
3. 2024 data for Ireland, Israel and Korea. 2019‑2022 data for Australia, Austria, Canada, Czechia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Switzerland, Türkiye and the United Kingdom.
Note: The symbol + indicates an improvement over time, - a deterioration, and = no change. For obesity, values are self-reported except if marked with an asterisk when measured data are also shown. Measured data are typically higher and more accurate than self-reported data, but with less country coverage.
Ensuring equitable access is critical for high-performing health systems and more inclusive societies. Population coverage – measured by the share of the population eligible for a core set of services and those satisfied with the availability of quality healthcare – offers an initial assessment of access to care. The proportion of spending covered by prepayment schemes gives further insight into financial protection. The share of populations reporting unmet needs for medical care offers a measure of effective service coverage. Figure 1.4 presents a snapshot of access to care across OECD countries, and Table 1.4 provides more detailed country comparisons.
Notes: Largest improvement shows countries with largest change in absolute value over ten years (% change in brackets). 2014‑2024 (Population coverage, eligibility, Population coverage, satisfaction, Service coverage) 2013‑2023 (Financial protection). Eligibility for population coverage is 100% in 26 countries. Population eligibility and satisfaction data from 2024.
Source: OECD Health Statistics 2025, Gallup World Poll 2024, Eurostat based on EU-SILC.
In terms of the share of the population eligible for coverage, most OECD countries have achieved universal (or near-universal) coverage for a core set of services. However, in Mexico, population coverage was 78% in 2024, and coverage was below 95% in a further three countries (Costa Rica, Estonia, the United States).
Satisfaction with the availability of quality health services offers further insight into effective coverage. On average across OECD countries in 2024, 64% of people were satisfied with the availability of quality health services where they live. Citizens in Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark and Luxembourg were most likely to be satisfied, whereas fewer than 50% of citizens were satisfied in Greece, Türkiye, Hungary, Italy, Chile and Colombia. Satisfaction levels have decreased slightly over time in a majority of OECD countries.
The degree of cost sharing applied to those services also affects access to care. Across OECD countries, around 75% of all healthcare costs were covered by government or compulsory health insurance schemes in 2023. However, in Chile, Latvia, Korea, Greece and Portugal only about 60% of all health spending was covered by publicly mandated schemes.
In terms of service coverage, on average across 28 OECD countries with comparable data, only 3.4% of the population reported that they had unmet care needs due to cost, distance or waiting times in 2024. However, over 8% of the population reported unmet needs in Greece, Canada, Finland, Estonia and Latvia. Socio‑economic disparities are significant in most countries, with the income gradient largest in Greece, Latvia and Finland.
Better than the OECD average.
Close to the OECD average.
Worse than the OECD average.
Note: The symbol + indicates an improvement over time, - a deterioration, and = no change. Mexico is excluded from standard deviation calculation for coverage.
1. 2021‑2023 data for Austria, Belgium, Costa Rica, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye, the United Kingdom and the United States.
2. 2023 data for Luxembourg.
3. 2022 data for Australia, Israel, Norway and the United Kingdom.
4. 2018‑2023 data for Canada, Iceland, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
High-quality care requires health services to be safe, appropriate, clinically effective and responsive to patient needs. Antibiotic prescriptions and avoidable hospital admissions are examples of indicators that measure the safety and appropriateness of primary care. Breast cancer screening is an indicator of the quality of preventive care; 30‑day mortality following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke measures the clinical effectiveness of secondary care. Figure 1.5 presents a snapshot of the quality and outcome of care across OECD countries, and Table 1.5 provides more detailed country comparisons.
Note: Largest improvement shows countries with largest changes in absolute value over ten years; 2013‑2023 (% change in brackets).
Source: OECD Health Statistics 2025; ECDC 2023 (for EU/EEA countries on antibiotics prescribed).
The overuse, underuse or misuse of antibiotics and other prescription medicines contribute to increased antimicrobial resistance and represent wasteful spending. The total volumes of antibiotics prescribed in 2023 varied three‑fold across countries, with Sweden, the Netherlands and Austria reporting the lowest volumes per population, and Greece and Korea reporting the highest. Across most OECD countries, the volume of antibiotics prescribed has decreased slightly over time.
Asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure and diabetes are all chronic conditions that can largely be treated in primary care – hospital admissions for such conditions may signal quality issues in primary care, with the proviso that very low admission rates may also partly reflect limited access. Aggregated together, such avoidable hospital admissions were highest in Lithuania, Germany and the United States in 2023, among 31 countries with comparable data. In almost all countries, these avoidable hospital admissions have been declining over the past decade.
Breast cancer is the cancer with the highest incidence among women in all OECD countries, and the second most common cause of cancer deaths among women. Timely mammography screening is critical to identify cases, allowing treatment to start at an early stage of the disease. In 2023, mammography screening rates were highest in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the United States (80% or higher among women aged 50‑69). Screening rates were lowest in Greece, Mexico and Costa Rica (all under 25%).
Mortality following AMI and stroke are long-established indicators of the quality of acute care. Both have been declining steadily in the last decade in most countries, yet important cross-country differences still exist. Looking at the two indicators together, Mexico and Latvia had the highest 30‑day mortality rates in 2023. Norway, Australia, the Netherlands and Japan had the lowest rates (comparisons based on unlinked data, as defined in Chapter 6).
Better than the OECD average.
Close to the OECD average.
Worse than the OECD average.
1. 2019‑2021 data for Israel, Japan, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
2. 2020‑2022 data for Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico and the United States.
3. 2020‑2022 data for Japan, Mexico and Switzerland.
4. 2021‑2022 data for Chile, Mexico, New Zealand and the United States.
Note: The symbol + indicates an improvement over time, - a deterioration, and = no change. Avoidable hospital admissions cover asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure and diabetes. Mexico is excluded from standard deviation calculation for AMI mortality. Colour coding for effective secondary care is based on the average level of 30‑day mortality following AMI or stroke (per 100 000 people, age‑sex standardised).
Having sufficient healthcare resources is critical to a resilient health system. More resources, though, do not automatically translate into better health outcomes – the effectiveness and distribution of spending is also important. Health spending per capita summarises overall resource availability. The number of practising doctors and nurses provides further information on the supply of health workers. The number of hospital beds is an indicator of acute care capacity. Figure 1.6 presents a snapshot of health system capacity and resources across OECD countries, and Table 1.6 provides more detailed country comparisons.
Note: Health spending data from 2024. Largest increase shows countries with largest changes in absolute value over ten years (% change in brackets); 2014‑2024 (Health spending), 2013‑2023 (Doctors, Nurses and Hospital beds).
Source: OECD Health Statistics 2025.
Overall, countries with higher health spending and higher numbers of health workers and other resources have better health outcomes, access and quality of care. However, the absolute quantity of resources invested is not a perfect predictor of better outcomes – risk factors for health and the wider social determinants of health are also critical, as is the efficient use of healthcare resources.
The United States spent considerably more than any other country (USD 14 885 per person, adjusted for purchasing power) in 2024, and also spent the most when measured as a share of gross domestic product (GDP). Health spending per capita was also relatively high in Switzerland, Norway, Germany, the Netherlands and Austria. Mexico, Colombia, Costa Rica and Türkiye spent the least, at less than USD 2 500 per capita. Trends in the health-to-GDP ratio over the past two decades translate into a distinct pattern with significant step increases in 2009 and 2020, and a period of stability in between.
A large part of health spending is translated into wages for the workforce. The number of doctors and nurses is therefore an important indicator to monitor how resources are being used. In 2023, the number of doctors ranged from 2.5 or fewer per 1 000 population in Türkiye to 5 or more per 1 000 in Austria, Italy, Norway, Greece and Portugal. However, numbers in Portugal and Greece are overestimated as they include all doctors licensed to practise. On average, there were just over 9 nurses per 1 000 population in OECD countries in 2023, ranging from around 3 per 1 000 or fewer in Colombia, Türkiye and Mexico to over 15 per 1 000 in Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. In Switzerland, associate professional nurses explain this high density.
The number of hospital beds provides an indication of resources available for delivering inpatient services. COVID‑19 highlighted the need to have sufficient hospital beds (particularly intensive care beds), together with enough doctors and nurses. Still, a surplus of beds may cause unnecessary use and therefore costs – notably for patients whose outcomes may not improve from intensive care. Across OECD countries, there were on average 4.2 hospital beds per 1 000 people in 2023. Over two‑thirds of OECD countries reported between 3 and 8 hospital beds per 1 000 people. Korea and Japan, however, had far more hospital beds (12‑13 per 1 000 people), while Mexico, Costa Rica and Sweden had relatively few.
Above the OECD average.
Close to the OECD average.
Below the OECD average.
1. 2017‑2022 data for Japan, Sweden and the United States.
2. 2017‑2022 data for Belgium, France, Japan and Sweden.
3. 2016‑2022 data for Australia, Costa Rica and the United States.
Note: The symbol + indicates an increase over time, - a reduction, and = no change. Japan and Korea are excluded from the standard deviation calculation for hospital beds. The United States is excluded from standard deviation calculation for health spending.
Quadrant charts plot the association between health spending and selected indicators of health system goals. They provide simple insights on efficiency by illustrating the extent to which spending more on health translates into stronger performance across three dimensions: health outcomes, access and quality of care. Note, though, that only a small subset of indicators for these three dimensions are compared against health spending, with quadrant charts showing simple statistical correlations rather than causal links. For a more in-depth analysis, see (OECD/The Health Foundation, 2025[2]).
Health spending and health outcomes
Figure 1.7 illustrates the extent to which countries that spend more on health have better health outcomes (note that such associations do not guarantee a causal relationship).
There is a clear positive association between health spending per capita and life expectancy at birth (Figure 1.7). Among the 38 OECD countries, 17 spend more and have higher life expectancy than the OECD average (top right quadrant). A further 11 countries spend less and have lower life expectancy than the OECD average (bottom left quadrant).
Of particular interest are countries that deviate from this basic relationship. Nine countries spend less than the OECD average but achieve higher life expectancy overall (top left quadrant). This may indicate relatively good value for money of health systems, notwithstanding the fact that many other factors also have an impact on health outcomes. These nine countries are Korea, Spain, Italy, Israel, Portugal, Chile, Greece, Japan and Slovenia. Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States fall in the bottom right quadrant, with the United States having much higher spending than other OECD countries but lower life expectancy than the OECD average.
For avoidable mortality, there is also a clear association in the expected direction (Figure 1.7). Among OECD countries, 14 spend more and have lower avoidable mortality rates (bottom right quadrant), and 12 spend less and have more deaths that could have been avoided (top left quadrant). Eight countries spend less than average but have lower avoidable mortality rates – Israel, Japan, Korea, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Slovenia (bottom left quadrant). The United States spends much more than the OECD average but has worse avoidable mortality rates.
Health spending, access and quality of care
Figure 1.8 illustrates the extent to which countries that spend more on health deliver more accessible and better-quality care (note that such associations do not guarantee a causal relationship).
In terms of access, Figure 1.8 shows a clear positive correlation between the share of the population satisfied with the availability of quality healthcare where they live and health spending per capita. Among OECD countries, 12 spent more and had a higher share of the population satisfied with availability than the OECD average (top right quadrant). The converse was true in 14 countries (bottom left quadrant). In Canada, health spending was 22% higher than the OECD average, but only 50% of the population were satisfied with the availability of quality healthcare (compared to 64% on average across OECD countries). In Korea and Czechia, health spending per capita was relatively low, but a noticeably greater share of the population was satisfied with the availability of quality healthcare than the OECD average.
In terms of quality of care, Figure 1.8 shows the relationship between health spending and breast cancer screening rates. While there is an overall weak positive correlation between health spending and the share of women screened regularly, seven countries spent less than the OECD average yet had higher cancer screening rates (top left quadrant), while six countries spent more than the OECD average and had lower cancer screening rates (bottom right quadrant).
Alongside these quadrant charts, a number of other cross-country indicators offer further insights into the cross-cutting health system performance dimensions of efficiency, equity, sustainability and resilience. Table 1.7 lists these indicators, with the selection based in part on those in the renewed OECD Health System Performance Framework and those indicators that are reported in this edition of Health at a Glance.
References
[1] OECD (2024), Rethinking Health System Performance Assessment: A Renewed Framework, https://doi.org/10.1787/107182c8.
[2] OECD/The Health Foundation (2025), How Do Health System Features Influence Health System Performance?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7b877762-en.