Tackling NCDs is inherently complex, given their multiple risk factors and the wide range of possible policy entry points from prevention to treatment. To help identify priorities, a comparative “Top Quartile” approach benchmarks countries against the best-performing 25% of OECD and EU peers on both risk factor prevalence and survival rates. This ambitious but achievable standard highlights where policy action can deliver the greatest returns. Obesity emerges as the most powerful lever for reducing NCD incidence, premature mortality and health expenditure, while smoking and harmful alcohol use also play important roles through their impacts on mortality and productivity. Overall, action on key risk factors delivers larger and broader benefits than improvements in survival alone. The evidence shows that focussing on a small number of national priorities can capture most of the potential gains, while also delivering wider societal and environmental co-benefits.
The Health and Economic Benefits of Tackling Non‑Communicable Diseases
Abstract
Focusing on key priorities maximises impact on health and the economy
Tackling NCDs is complex because they stem from a wide range of risk factors, including obesity, smoking, poor diet, harmful alcohol consumption, and air pollution, and action can be taken at multiple levels, from prevention to treatment. Identifying which interventions yield the greatest benefits is therefore crucial for effective policymaking.
A comparative approach helps clarify priorities. Rather than focussing on the absolute prevalence of risk factors, the OECD’s “Top Quartile” method compares each country’s performance with the best 25% of OECD and EU peers, for both risk factor prevalence and NCD survival rates. This ambitious but achievable benchmark highlights where the potential for improvement is greatest, and hence the payoff from policy action.
By aligning with top performers, countries can achieve notable health, economic, and social gains. If all OECD countries reached the Top Quartile levels of NCD risk factors, the model estimates a 11.4% drop in premature mortality, a 6.2% reduction in healthcare expenditure, and a 1.3% rise in GDP (11.5%, 4.6% and 1.4%, respectively, in the EU).
While these numbers may appear modest at first glance, their impact is consequential. A 11.4% drop in premature mortality means one person is saved from an early death every minute (every 3.5 minutes in the EU). A 6.2% decrease in healthcare expenditure is a total annual saving of USD PPP 317 billion, equivalent to more than the total healthcare expenditure of Italy. This is more than the average spending on all preventive care, which is around 3% of overall health spending across OECD countries. A 1.3% increase in GDP across the OECD is nearly USD 1 trillion in additional economic output annually – comparable to adding the entire economies of Sweden and Portugal to the OECD’s GDP (1.4% across the EU equates to USD PPP 342 billion, equivalent to adding more than the entire economy of Finland to the EU’s annual economic output).
Obesity emerges as the single greatest lever for improvement, accounting for 51% of the total reduction in new NCD cases under the Top Quartile risk factor scenario (42% for the EU). Achieving the Top Quartile obesity level would prevent 11% of new NCD cases each year, reduce premature deaths by 5.6%, and cut health spending by 3.3% (7.0%, 3.6% and 1.6%, respectively, for the EU). These improvements would boost the OECD workforce by the equivalent of 4.5 million full-time workers and raise GDP by 0.6% on average (495 000 workers and 0.6% of GDP for the EU).
Other risk factors also play significant roles. Smoking has a disproportionate effect on premature mortality due to its strong link to cancer. Harmful alcohol use, meanwhile, has a relatively large economic impact because it reduces productivity and labour force participation.
While improving survival rates for NCDs through better healthcare remains vital, primary prevention offers greater health and economic returns. Aligning CVD survival rates with the Top Quartile would reduce premature mortality by about 1.7% (2.6% in the EU), while improved cancer survival rates would decrease premature mortality by 1.5% (2.3% in the EU). However, addressing risk factors like obesity and smoking can achieve larger reductions in premature mortality, along with much greater gains in GDP and productivity.
There are three main reasons for this difference. First, survival rates are already relatively high in many OECD countries, leaving less room for improvement. Second, behavioural and metabolic risk factors influence multiple diseases simultaneously, multiplying their overall impact on health outcomes. Third, many risk factors, particularly harmful alcohol use, affect productivity directly through absenteeism, disability, and reduced work efficiency.
Every country can achieve substantial progress by focussing on one or two priority areas rather than spreading resources too thinly. On average, tackling a single top priority accounts for about half of the total possible improvement in disease incidence, health spending, and GDP. Addressing two priorities achieves about 75% of the potential, and three cover around 90%.
Beyond the direct health and economic effects, action on NCD risk factors yields broader societal and environmental benefits. Healthier diets can significantly lower emissions, while alcohol control policies can enhance public safety by reducing premature deaths from accidents and violence by 5%.
Action on NCDs is not only a public health priority but also an economic necessity. By investing in prevention, governments can protect the financial sustainability of health systems, strengthen economic resilience, and improve productivity and well-being. However, this can present a daunting challenge. NCDs are shaped by many different risk factors, and action can be taken at multiple levels, from preventing disease in the first place to improving treatment and care once disease develops. With such a wide range of possible entry points, it is not always obvious where to start or which actions will make the greatest difference.
Simply listing risk factor prevalence side by side does little to show which ones matter most. Risk factors influence different diseases and to varying degrees. In turn, those NCDs affect health, mortality, and economic performance in distinct ways. The health system’s performance in treating NCDs further complicates the picture.
The relative importance of different risk factors, and of prevention and treatment, becomes clear when looking at the impact on lives, on well-being, and on the economy. But rather than focussing on the overall size of the impact, it is important to see how a country performs compared with others, and the consequences of any gaps. Where performance falls short, the potential for improvement is greatest, revealing which areas offer the biggest opportunities for change.
This chapter identifies priority areas for action by aligning NCD risk factor prevalence and NCD survival rates to levels achieved in the top 25% of OECD and EU countries, for each age and sex group. This ambitious but achievable Top Quartile approach shows the areas with the greatest potential for improvement (see Box 4.1 and Annex A for more details on the Top Quartile scenario).
To understand the potential for improvement, NCD risk factor prevalence rates and NCD survival rates for each country were aligned to the top 25% levels observed across OECD and EU countries, for each age and sex group (Figure 4.1). Rather than eliminating all risk or aligning to the very best performance, which may not be achievable, this approach can be considered a realistic goal for most countries.
Note: Illustrative, not real data.
It should be noted though, that under the Top Quartile scenario a non-insignificant amount of risk remains. Firstly, aligning to the Top Quartile means countries that are already in the Top Quartile group will see no impact for that risk factor in that age and sex group. For others, it will reduce risk factor levels but only to the level of the Top Quartile, rather than fully eliminating them. Secondly, as NCDs develop over time, historic exposure to risk factors will continue to have an impact on the future NCD burden. Thirdly, reduced risk factor exposure may only delay the onset of NCDs for some individuals.
By reaching the Top Quartile risk factor levels, countries would see notable health and economic gains. On average in the OECD, achieving the Top Quartile levels for NCD risk factors would decrease premature mortality by 11.4%, healthcare expenditure by 6.2% and raise GDP by 1.3% (11.5%, 4.6% and 1.4%, respectively, in the EU) (Figure 4.2). While there is considerable variation between countries, all have room for improvement. This means that no country is in the Top Quartile for all risk factors.
Impact from aligning prevalence of all six risk factors to the Top Quartile levels on premature mortality (as a percentage of total premature mortality), health expenditure (as a percentage of total health expenditure) and GDP (as a percentage of total GDP), average over 2026‑2050
Note: The impact shown is a combined effect of aligning all risk factors prevalence to the Top Quartile level and shows the total impact across all diseases (e.g. including the effects on other diseases like dementia and alcohol use disorder and including comorbidity effects) and on productivity. This figure reports the EU, OECD and G20 averages based on the total impact across countries in each group (e.g. overall premature mortality), implicitly weighting countries within these groups by their share of total impact when calculating the average.
Source: OECD SPHeP NCDs model, 2025.
While these numbers may appear modest at first glance, their impact is consequential. A 11.4% drop in premature mortality means one person is saved from an early death every minute (every 3.5 minutes in the EU). A 6.2% decrease in healthcare expenditure is a total annual saving of USD PPP 317 billion, equivalent to more than the total healthcare expenditure of Italy (USD PPP 67 billion in the EU, equivalent to the healthcare expenditure of Austria) (OECD, 2025[1]; World Bank, 2024[2]). This is more than the average spending on all preventive care, which is around 3% of overall health spending across OECD countries (OECD, 2025[1]). A 1.3% increase in GDP across the OECD is nearly USD 1 trillion in additional economic output annually – comparable to adding the entire economies of Sweden and Portugal to the OECD’s GDP (World Bank, 2024[3]). For the EU, a 1.4% GDP boost across the region equates to USD PPP 342 billion, equivalent to adding more than the entire economy of Finland to the EU’s annual economic output (World Bank, 2024[4]). Moreover, even if the economic impact may be modest in some cases, the fact that prevention benefits individuals and yields measurable economic gains makes it valuable in itself.
For the OECD as a whole, obesity offers the greatest opportunity to reduce the NCD burden. Obesity accounts for 51% of the total impact of aligning risk factor prevalence to the Top Quartile level on new disease incidence (42% for the EU) (Figure 4.3). This is driven primarily by its link to CVDs and diabetes. Improvements in smoking, air pollution and diet account for 14% of the total impact each. Across the OECD, aligning risk factor prevalence to the Top Quartile would prevent 6.7 million new cases of NCDs every year, including nearly 4 million cases of CVDs, 2 million cases of diabetes and 500 000 new cancers. In the EU, it would prevent over 3.2 million cases of NCDs, including over 1 million cases of CVD, 1.8 million cases of diabetes and almost 150 000 new cancers (see Annex Figure 4.A.1 for EU results and Annex Figure 4.B.1 for G20 results).
Impact of aligning risk factor prevalence to the Top Quartile level on the number of new NCD cases per year, broken down by risk factors and NCDs, total for the OECD, average over 2026-2050
Note: The results compare the number of new NCDs per year in a business-as-usual scenario to one in which all countries achieve the Top Quartile risk factor levels and reflect the change in new NCD cases per year, averaged over 2026-2050. This change is shown split by risk factor and by disease. See Annex Figure 4.A.1 for EU level results and Annex Figure 4.B.1 for G20 results.
Source: OECD SPHeP NCDs model, 2025.
When looking at other measures of the disease burden, such as the impact of healthcare expenditure and GDP, obesity remains the most important risk factor (Figure 4.4). If all countries in the OECD were to achieve the Top Quartile level of obesity prevalence, this would avoid the occurrence of more than 3.4 million cases of NCDs per year, which corresponds to 11% of the total number of new NCD cases recorded each year across the OECD. Similarly, premature mortality would be reduced by 5.6%, and total health expenditure by 3.3%, on average between 2026 and 2050 (7.0%, 3.6% and 1.6%, respectively, for the EU). It would also increase the total OECD workforce output by the equivalent of 4.5 million workers and raise GDP by 0.6% on average (495 000 workers and 0.6% of GDP for the EU).
NCD cases prevented (thousands and as a percentage of total new NCD cases), premature deaths avoided (thousands and as a percentage of total premature deaths), health expenditure saved (USD PPP billions and as a percentage of total health expenditure), workforce output increase (full-time equivalents), GDP increase (% of GDP), if all countries achieve the Top Quartile levels for risk factor prevalence, total for OECD countries, per year, average over 2026‑2050
Note: Cases are specific for the four NCDs, while the impact on premature mortality, health expenditure, workforce output and GDP is a combined effect of the risk factor on all diseases (e.g. including the effects on other diseases like dementia and alcohol use disorder and including comorbidity effects) and on productivity. In this figure, percentages are calculated using OECD-wide totals, capturing the total impact across OECD countries rather than a simple average of country-level effects. For country-level results, see Annex 4.C.
Source: OECD SPHeP NCDs model, 2025.
While the impact of lower smoking prevalence, improved diet and less air pollution on the number of new NCD cases is similar, smoking has a greater impact on premature mortality, due to its strong link with cancer, which has a high case fatality rate compared to other major NCDs. Through its impact on productivity and labour force participation, harmful alcohol use has a relatively large impact on workforce output – and by extension on GDP.
To improve health and economic outcomes, there are different levels at which policy can act. Primary prevention aims to stop diseases before they occur, by promoting healthy lifestyles and reducing environmental risks. Once a disease has already developed, the focus should be on treating it early and effectively, to prevent complications or death. The quality of care for NCDs is partially reflected in the survival rates of those who become ill. As survival rates vary significantly across countries, there remains substantial scope to improve care for NCDs, in addition to preventing NCDs in the first place. This would reduce premature mortality from NCDs, which would in turn also increase labour force output and GDP.
Aligning survival rates across OECD countries to the Top Quartile would reduce premature mortality from CVDs by 15%, and premature mortality from cancer by 9% (19% and 10% in the EU). Looking at overall premature mortality, aligning CVD survival rates would reduce premature mortality by about 1.7% (2.6% in the EU), while improved cancer survival rates would decrease NCD premature mortality by 1.5% (2.3% in the EU) (Figure 4.5) (see Annex Figure 4.A.1 and Annex Figure 4.B.1 for EU and G20 results respectively). However, aligning risk factors such as obesity and smoking to the Top Quartile yields even larger reductions in premature mortality. Moreover, the impact of addressing these risk factors on workforce participation and GDP is significantly greater than the gains achieved through improved survival rates. While better survival outcomes contribute meaningfully to health improvements, the economic benefits of reducing key risk factors are far more substantial.
This difference arises from several key reasons. First, the results suggest that there is less scope for improvement in survival rates, as these are already relatively similar across high-performing countries, meaning that aligning to the Top Quartile only delivers limited additional gains. In other words, there is less left to gain. Second, behavioural and metabolic risk factors affect multiple diseases simultaneously, so their improvement has a wider impact on overall health. Finally, risk factors also have a direct influence on productivity and economic performance, especially in the case of harmful alcohol use, which is closely linked to absenteeism and reduced work efficiency. As a result, tackling risk factors produces broader benefits for both public health and the economy than improving survival rates alone.
For some countries, focussing on improving survival rates does deliver the largest benefit in terms of premature mortality (Table 4.1). This is typically the case in countries where survival outcomes for cancer or CVDs are well below those of other countries, or where the potential gains from addressing risk factors are relatively modest. In these contexts, strengthening healthcare systems, expanding access to timely diagnosis and treatment, and improving disease management can substantially reduce premature mortality and close critical gaps in health outcomes. However, even in these countries, improving survival rates does not produce a significant economic gain. The broader economic returns from reducing key NCD risk factors outweighs the gains achievable from better survival in all countries analysed.
NCD cases prevented (thousands and as a percentage of total new NCD cases), premature deaths avoided (thousands and as a percentage of total premature deaths), health expenditure saved (USD PPP billions and as a percentage of total health expenditure), workforce output increase (full-time equivalents), GDP increase (% of GDP), if all countries achieve the Top Quartile levels for risk factor prevalence and for CVD and cancer survival rates, total for OECD countries, per year, average over 2026‑2050
Note: Cancer and CVD survival reflect improvements in diseases management, whereas the final six rows capture gains arising from reduced risk‑factor prevalence through prevention. The results compare a business-as-usual scenario to one in which countries achieve the Top Quartile risk factor prevalence or survival rates. Cases of NCDs are disease‑specific, while the impact on premature mortality, health expenditure, workforce output and GDP is a combined effect of the risk factor on all diseases (e.g. including the effects on other diseases like dementia and alcohol use disorder and including comorbidity effects) and on productivity. The increase in health expenditure shown for improved survival rates represent the increased cost of people living with NCDs for longer and does not include any expenditure required to improve the survival rates. CVDs and cancer account for 90% of deaths from NCDs, and survival rates for COPD and diabetes were therefore not considered. In this figure, percentages are calculated using OECD-wide totals, capturing the total impact across OECD countries rather than a simple average of country-level effects. Please see Annex 4.A for results for the European Union and Annex Figure 4.B.2 for results for the G20.
Source: OECD SPHeP NCDs model, 2025.
Country-specific top three priority areas in terms of reduction of premature mortality, increase in workforce output and increase in average GDP, based on the impact of aligning risk factor prevalence and CVD and cancer survival rates to the Top Quartile level, average over 2026‑2050
Note: For detailed country-level results, please see Annex Figure 4.C.1.
Source: OECD SPHeP NCDs model, 2025.
While the greatest potential for the OECD and EU as a whole lies with obesity, country-specific priorities vary. But regardless of which risk factors take precedence and what outcomes are considered, all countries can achieve substantial improvements by concentrating on just one or two top priorities. On average across the 51 countries analysed, addressing the leading priority alone delivers around 50% of the total potential impact on cases, healthcare expenditure and GDP (Figure 4.6). Tackling the top two covers roughly 75%, while the top three account for about 90% of the total. For premature mortality, where survival rates offer additional policy levers, addressing the top two priorities generates 50% of the impact on average. These findings highlight the importance of setting clear priorities and allocating resources effectively to maximise impact.
Proportion of the total impact – arising from bringing all risk factor prevalence and CVD and cancer survival rates to the Top Quartile level – that is achieved by the top three priority areas
Note: Improved survival rates do not affect the indicator on cases of NCDs and increase healthcare cost as people live longer with these conditions. Categories are shown in order of their relative importance in the country. In this figure, EU, OECD and G20 averages reflect the overall impact of addressing shared priorities across countries within each group respectively, which can result in a lower value than the average of country-specific priorities. For detailed country-level results, please see Annex 4.A.
Source: OECD SPHeP NCDs model, 2025.
In around 2 out of 3 countries, obesity provides the greatest opportunity to reduce the number of new cases of NCDs, health expenditure and increase GDP. Smoking, diet and air pollution are also common risk factor priorities. When it comes to reducing premature mortality, obesity remains the top priority in about half of all countries, but CVD survival rates also play a major role. In 11 countries (22%), it is the top priority to reduce premature mortality, and in more than half of all countries it is in the top three. Cancer survival rates are also in the top three of nearly half the countries, but often as a secondary or tertiary priority.
It is important to note that, while focussing on the risk factors where the largest health and economic gains can be achieved is important given the growing burden of NCDs and strain on health systems, this should not lead to neglecting other risk factors that may have a smaller aggregate impact but still carry significant consequences for certain groups. A balanced strategy should therefore combine population-level prioritisation with targeted interventions for vulnerable or high-risk groups. Similarly, while most gains may come from strengthening primary prevention, investment in secondary and tertiary prevention remains essential to ensure fair access to care and better outcomes for those already affected by disease.
In addition to reducing the burden of NCDs, action on risk factors such as harmful alcohol use and diet can produce wider societal benefits. Policies on diet can help reduce emissions associated with the food system, and policies to prevent harmful alcohol use can improve safety by reducing road traffic accidents and violence. These societal co-benefits make an even stronger case for action.
Healthier diets would reduce emissions by the equivalent of 58 million cars in the OECD
There are strong links between diets and emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH₄), and nitrous oxide (N₂O). About one‑third of all anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions are linked to food systems (Crippa et al., 2021[5]). This includes land-use, production (farming and harvesting), processing, transporting and distribution, packaging, cooking, and disposing of waste. To reflect the relationship between diet and emissions, the OECD SPHeP NCDs model links dietary risk factors to emissions using data from the WHO Diet Impact Assessment model (WHO, 2023[6]).
In the Top Quartile scenario, where consumption of meat, fruit, vegetables and whole grains are aligned to the best 25% of countries across the OECD and EU, this is estimated to reduce emissions by 243 Mt of CO2‑equivalent per year, for the OECD as a whole (56 Mt for the EU). This is the amount of emissions associated with more than 58 million gasoline‑powered passenger vehicles (US EPA, 2023[7]) or the number of cars in Germany and the Netherlands combined (13 million in the EU).
Addressing harmful alcohol use could prevent 5% of premature deaths due to homicide and road traffic accidents in the OECD
Harmful alcohol use has a direct impact on societal safety, as it can lead to road traffic accidents and violence due to its effects on cognitive function, co‑ordination, and behaviour. When individuals consume too much alcohol, it impairs their ability to make rational decisions, slows reaction times, and impairs motor skills, all of which are critical for safe driving. Similarly, alcohol can lower inhibitions and increase impulsivity, making individuals more prone to engage in confrontations and escalate conflicts. In some cases, alcohol-induced aggression can lead to physical altercations, assaults, and even homicides.
If all countries were to align total alcohol consumption to the level observed in the best performing 25% of OECD and EU countries, this would prevent a total of 5 367 premature deaths due to road traffic accidents per year in the OECD (2 113 in the EU). This is 4.8% of the total premature mortality from road traffic accidents (6.2% in the EU) (Figure 4.7). It would also prevent 2 358 premature deaths due to interpersonal violence each year in the OECD, 4.8% of the total premature mortality from this cause (327 and 5.9% in the EU). Variation between countries is driven both by current total alcohol consumption levels and premature mortality rates.
Reduction in premature mortality from road traffic accidents and interpersonal violence (as a percentage of total premature mortality from those causes) from achieving Top Quartile total alcohol consumption level, average over 2026‑2050
Note: In this figure, EU, OECD and G20 averages are reported as simple (i.e. unweighted) means across member countries.
Source: OECD SPHeP NCDs model, 2025.
References
[5] Crippa, M. et al. (2021), “Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions”, Nature Food, Vol. 2/3, pp. 198-209, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9.
[1] OECD (2025), Health at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8f9e3f98-en.
[7] US EPA (2023), Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator#results (accessed on 30 November 2023).
[6] WHO (2023), The Diet Impact Assessment model: a tool for analyzing the health, environmental and affordability implications of dietary change, World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen.
[4] World Bank (2024), GDP, PPP (constant 2021 international $) - European Union, Finland | Data, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.KD?locations=EU-FI (accessed on 24 March 2026).
[3] World Bank (2024), GDP, PPP (constant 2021 international $) - OECD members, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.KD?end=2024&locations=OE-PT-SE&most_recent_value_desc=false&start=2024&view=bar&year=2023 (accessed on 10 March 2026).
[2] World Bank (2024), GDP, PPP (constant 2021 international $) - OECD members, Portugal, Sweden, Italy, Spain, France, Denmark, Belgium, Poland, Austria | Data, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.KD?end=2022&locations=OE-PT-SE-IT-ES-FR-DK-BE-PL-AT&most_recent_year_desc=false&start=2022&view=bar&year=2023 (accessed on 24 March 2026).
Note: The results compare the number of new NCDs per year in a business-as-usual scenario to one in which all countries achieve the Top Quartile risk factor levels and reflect the change in new NCD cases per year, averaged over 2026-2050. This change is shown split by risk factor and by disease.
Source: OECD SPHeP NCDs model, 2025.
NCD cases prevented (thousands and as a percentage of total new NCD cases), premature deaths avoided (thousands and as a percentage of total premature deaths), health expenditure saved (USD PPP billions and as a percentage of total health expenditure), workforce output increase (full-time equivalents), GDP increase (% of GDP), if all countries achieve the Top Quartile levels for risk factor prevalence and for CVD and cancer survival rates, total for EU countries, per year, average over 2026‑2050
Note: Cancer and CVD survival reflect improvements in diseases management, whereas the final six rows capture gains arising from reduced risk‑factor prevalence through prevention.The results compare a business-as-usual scenario to one in which countries achieve the Top Quartile risk factor prevalence or survival rates.Cases of NCDs are disease‑specific, while the impact on premature mortality, health expenditure, workforce output and GDP is a combined effect of the risk factor on all diseases (e.g. including the effects on other diseases like dementia and alcohol use disorder, and including comorbidity effects) and on productivity. The increase in health expenditure shown for improved survival rates represent the increased cost of people living with NCDs for longer and does not include any expenditure required to improve the survival rates. CVDs and cancer account for 90% of deaths from NCDs, and survival rates for COPD and diabetes were therefore not considered. In this figure, percentages are calculated using EU-wide totals, capturing the total impact across EU countries rather than a simple average of country-level effects.
Source: OECD SPHeP NCDs model, 2025.
Note: The results compare the number of new NCDs per year in a business-as-usual scenario to one in which all countries achieve the Top Quartile risk factor levels and reflect the change in new NCD cases per year, averaged over 2026-2050. This change is shown split by risk factor and by disease.
Source: OECD SPHeP NCDs model, 2025.
NCD cases prevented (thousands and as a percentage of total new NCD cases), premature deaths avoided (thousands and as a percentage of total premature deaths), health expenditure saved (USD PPP billions and as a percentage of total health expenditure), workforce output increase (full-time equivalents), GDP increase (% of GDP), if all countries achieve the Top Quartile levels for risk factor prevalence and for CVD and cancer survival rates, total for G20 countries, per year, average over 2026‑2050
Note: Cancer and CVD survival reflect improvements in diseases management, whereas the final six rows capture gains arising from reduced risk‑factor prevalence through prevention. The results compare a business-as-usual scenario to one in which countries achieve the Top Quartile risk factor prevalence or survival rates. Cases of NCDs are disease‑specific, while the impact on premature mortality, health expenditure, workforce output and GDP is a combined effect of the risk factor on all diseases (e.g. including the effects on other diseases like dementia and alcohol use disorder, and including comorbidity effects) and on productivity. The increase in health expenditure shown for improved survival rates represent the increased cost of people living with NCDs for longer and does not include any expenditure required to improve the survival rates. CVDs and cancer account for 90% of deaths from NCDs, and survival rates for COPD and diabetes were therefore not considered. In this figure, percentages are calculated using G20-wide totals, capturing the total impact across G20 countries rather than a simple average of country-level effects.
Source: OECD SPHeP NCDs model, 2025.
Premature deaths avoided per year (number and as a percentage of total premature deaths), annual health expenditure saved (USD PPP millions and as a percentage of total health expenditure), GDP increase (% of GDP), if country achieves the Top Quartile rate for each risk factor and survival rate, average over 2026‑2050
Note: If a country is in the Top Quartile for a certain risk factor across all ages and sexes, the potential will be zero.
Source: OECD SPHeP NCDs model, 2025.