Out-of-Pocket Health Spending 2006
Out-of-pocket health spending measures the personal financial burden of healthcare costs in different countries.
Interactive Map
Complete Data Rankings
Rank | Actions | ||
|---|---|---|---|
1 | Comoros | 79.495 % | |
2 | Georgia | 77.264 % | |
3 | Afghanistan | 76.825 % | |
4 | Turkmenistan | 76.423 % | |
5 | Côte d'Ivoire | 75.945 % | |
6 | Myanmar | 75.016 % | |
7 | Cameroon | 74.358 % | |
8 | Togo | 73.646 % | |
9 | Pakistan | 72.837 % | |
10 | India | 72.257 % | |
11 | Guinea | 70.81 % | |
12 | Nigeria | 70.459 % | |
13 | Tajikistan | 68.793 % | |
14 | Congo, Democratic Republic of the | 68.512 % | |
15 | Mauritania | 68.16 % | |
16 | Sierra Leone | 67.111 % | |
17 | Yemen | 65.892 % | |
18 | Bangladesh | 65.638 % | |
19 | Liberia | 64.512 % | |
20 | Chad | 63.66 % | |
21 | Guatemala | 61.516 % | |
22 | Equatorial Guinea | 61.228 % | |
23 | Armenia | 61.174 % | |
24 | Egypt | 60.417 % | |
25 | Ecuador | 59.986 % | |
26 | Morocco | 58.749 % | |
27 | Saint Lucia | 58.682 % | |
28 | Uzbekistan | 56.895 % | |
29 | Mali | 56.743 % | |
30 | Paraguay | 56.722 % | |
31 | Azerbaijan | 56.284 % | |
32 | China | 55.991 % | |
33 | Sudan | 55.789 % | |
34 | Dominican Republic | 54.748 % | |
35 | Uganda | 54.053 % | |
36 | Philippines | 54.035 % | |
37 | Mexico | 53.764 % | |
38 | Indonesia | 53.375 % | |
39 | Mauritius | 52.913 % | |
40 | Grenada | 52.815 % | |
41 | Cambodia | 52.65 % | |
42 | Iran | 51.688 % | |
43 | Central African Republic | 51.548 % | |
44 | Guinea-Bissau | 51.375 % | |
45 | Syrian Arab Republic | 51.209 % | |
46 | Gabon | 51.144 % | |
47 | Saint Kitts and Nevis | 50.049 % | |
48 | Maldives | 49.922 % | |
49 | Niger | 49.887 % | |
50 | Honduras | 49.862 % | |
51 | Trinidad and Tobago | 49.325 % | |
52 | Albania | 49.049 % | |
53 | Singapore | 48.835 % | |
54 | Congo | 48.682 % | |
55 | Cyprus | 48.328 % | |
56 | Republic of Moldova | 46.452 % | |
57 | Jamaica | 45.732 % | |
58 | Benin | 45.665 % | |
59 | Bosnia and Herzegovina | 44.997 % | |
60 | Lebanon | 44.689 % | |
61 | Haiti | 43.063 % | |
62 | Tunisia | 42.675 % | |
63 | Bulgaria | 42.647 % | |
64 | South Korea | 42.526 % | |
65 | Nepal | 42.502 % | |
66 | Nicaragua | 41.984 % | |
67 | State of Palestine | 41.3 % | |
68 | Laos | 41.078 % | |
69 | Sri Lanka | 40.949 % | |
70 | Chile | 40.75 % | |
71 | Peru | 40.329 % | |
72 | Dominica | 39.928 % | |
73 | Sao Tome and Principe | 39.904 % | |
74 | Burundi | 39.728 % | |
75 | Burkina Faso | 39.625 % | |
76 | Kenya | 39.192 % | |
77 | Jordan | 39.186 % | |
78 | Kyrgyzstan | 39.18 % | |
79 | Ethiopia | 38.775 % | |
80 | El Salvador | 38.751 % | |
81 | Senegal | 37.44 % | |
82 | North Macedonia | 37 % | |
83 | Ukraine | 36.133 % | |
84 | Greece | 36.045 % | |
85 | Latvia | 35.598 % | |
86 | Barbados | 35.379 % | |
87 | Guyana | 35.291 % | |
88 | Ghana | 35.204 % | |
89 | Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | 34.947 % | |
90 | Malaysia | 34.732 % | |
91 | Vietnam | 34.697 % | |
92 | Libya | 34.627 % | |
93 | Eritrea | 34.457 % | |
94 | Brazil | 34.371 % | |
95 | Panama | 33.342 % | |
96 | Serbia | 32.84 % | |
97 | Iraq | 32.587 % | |
98 | Bolivia | 32.265 % | |
99 | Argentina | 32.12 % | |
100 | Lithuania | 31.856 % | |
101 | Madagascar | 31.654 % | |
102 | Djibouti | 31.156 % | |
103 | Russia | 31.127 % | |
104 | Kazakhstan | 31.081 % | |
105 | Costa Rica | 31.077 % | |
106 | Angola | 30.666 % | |
107 | Antigua and Barbuda | 30.316 % | |
108 | Belize | 30.156 % | |
109 | Lesotho | 30.023 % | |
110 | United Arab Emirates | 29.71 % | |
111 | Malta | 29.622 % | |
112 | Bahamas | 29.36 % | |
113 | Algeria | 29.121 % | |
114 | Switzerland | 27.349 % | |
115 | Poland | 27.106 % | |
116 | Bahrain | 26.696 % | |
117 | Slovakia | 26.588 % | |
118 | Tanzania | 25.772 % | |
119 | Israel | 25.724 % | |
120 | Zambia | 25.696 % | |
121 | Mongolia | 25.556 % | |
122 | Portugal | 25.525 % | |
123 | Hungary | 25.011 % | |
124 | Belarus | 24.389 % | |
125 | Cabo Verde | 23.8 % | |
126 | Uruguay | 23.769 % | |
127 | Turkey | 23.649 % | |
128 | Estonia | 23.614 % | |
129 | Spain | 22.049 % | |
130 | Timor-Leste | 22.019 % | |
131 | Italy | 21.317 % | |
132 | Kuwait | 21.239 % | |
133 | San Marino | 21.096 % | |
134 | Belgium | 20.248 % | |
135 | Romania | 19.991 % | |
136 | Seychelles | 19.816 % | |
137 | Australia | 19.749 % | |
138 | Austria | 19.169 % | |
139 | Finland | 18.817 % | |
140 | Qatar | 18.668 % | |
141 | Suriname | 18.084 % | |
142 | Andorra | 17.944 % | |
143 | Colombia | 17.934 % | |
144 | Thailand | 17.657 % | |
145 | Palau | 17.626 % | |
146 | Iceland | 16.946 % | |
147 | Sweden | 16.754 % | |
148 | Norway | 16.453 % | |
149 | Japan | 16.422 % | |
150 | Canada | 15.888 % | |
151 | Saudi Arabia | 15.394 % | |
152 | Bhutan | 14.791 % | |
153 | Brunei Darussalam | 14.689 % | |
154 | Denmark | 14.526 % | |
155 | Fiji | 14.346 % | |
156 | Rwanda | 14.266 % | |
157 | Cuba | 14.264 % | |
158 | Ireland | 13.93 % | |
159 | Germany | 13.895 % | |
160 | New Zealand | 13.838 % | |
161 | United States | 13.678 % | |
162 | Luxembourg | 13.376 % | |
163 | Croatia | 13.315 % | |
164 | Gambia | 13.045 % | |
165 | Samoa | 12.831 % | |
166 | Mozambique | 12.747 % | |
167 | Eswatini | 12.404 % | |
168 | United Kingdom | 12.35 % | |
169 | Slovenia | 12.278 % | |
170 | Czech Republic | 11.646 % | |
171 | Oman | 11.478 % | |
172 | South Africa | 10.583 % | |
173 | France | 9.359 % | |
174 | Vanuatu | 9.102 % | |
175 | Malawi | 8.924 % | |
176 | Netherlands | 8.327 % | |
177 | Botswana | 8.293 % | |
178 | Papua New Guinea | 8.107 % | |
179 | Tonga | 7.913 % | |
180 | Monaco | 6.094 % | |
181 | Namibia | 5.599 % | |
182 | Micronesia (Fed. States of) | 5.031 % | |
183 | Nauru | 3.954 % | |
184 | Tuvalu | 2.99 % | |
185 | Solomon Islands | 2.658 % | |
186 | Marshall Islands | 0.915 % | |
187 | Kiribati | 0.059 % |
- #1
Comoros
- #2
Georgia
- #3
Afghanistan
- #4
Turkmenistan
- #5
Côte d'Ivoire
- #6
Myanmar
- #7
Cameroon
- #8
Togo
- #9
Pakistan
- #10
India
Analysis: These countries represent the highest values in this dataset, showcasing significant scale and impact on global statistics.
- #187
Kiribati
- #186
Marshall Islands
- #185
Solomon Islands
- #184
Tuvalu
- #183
Nauru
- #182
Micronesia (Fed. States of)
- #181
Namibia
- #180
Monaco
- #179
Tonga
- #178
Papua New Guinea
Context: These countries or territories have the lowest values, often due to geographic size, administrative status, or specific characteristics.
Analysis & Context
In 2006, Comoros led the world in Out-of-Pocket Health Spending with a staggering 79.49%, highlighting the significant personal financial burden of healthcare costs. The global range of out-of-pocket spending stretched from 0.06% to 79.49%. The average out-of-pocket health spending across 187 countries was 35.41%, providing a stark contrast to the extremes observed.
Economic and Policy Influences on High Spending Countries
The countries with the highest out-of-pocket health spending, including Comoros (79.49%), Georgia (77.26%), and Afghanistan (76.82%), often face economic challenges and limited public healthcare funding. In many such nations, healthcare infrastructure is underdeveloped, and citizens must bear the cost of medical expenses directly. This pattern is frequently observed in countries where government healthcare policies are either insufficient or underfunded, forcing individuals to resort to private healthcare options, often at a high cost.
For instance, in Georgia, the transition from a centrally planned economy to a market-based one has left gaps in public health provision, necessitating heavy reliance on out-of-pocket expenditures. Similarly, Afghanistan has faced continuous conflict, which has severely disrupted its healthcare systems, leaving individuals to cover their medical costs independently.
Low Out-of-Pocket Spending: A Reflection of Robust Public Healthcare
At the other end of the spectrum, countries like Kiribati (0.06%), Marshall Islands (0.91%), and Solomon Islands (2.66%) demonstrate minimal out-of-pocket health spending. These countries typically have robust public healthcare systems funded by the government or external aid, significantly reducing the financial burden on individuals. Such systems are designed to provide essential healthcare services at little to no cost to the public, thus reflecting low out-of-pocket expenditure percentages.
In these nations, healthcare policies prioritize universal coverage and access, often supported by international aid, which helps maintain low personal financial contributions towards health services. The presence of comprehensive public healthcare frameworks is a common feature among these countries, contributing to their minimal out-of-pocket spending.
Year-Over-Year Trends: Significant Movements and Their Implications
While the global average change in out-of-pocket spending was a decrease of 0.53% (-0.8%), certain countries experienced significant shifts. Ghana saw the largest increase at 11.67% (49.6%), indicating potential challenges in public healthcare funding or increased reliance on private healthcare services. Similar increases were observed in Chad and Ethiopia, both at 7.44%, reflecting possible economic pressures or changes in healthcare policy.
Conversely, some countries experienced substantial decreases in out-of-pocket spending. Angola recorded a dramatic decline of 11.67% (-27.6%), potentially due to improved public healthcare funding or international aid efforts. Timor-Leste and Thailand also saw significant reductions, suggesting improvements in public healthcare systems or policy interventions aimed at reducing personal healthcare costs.
Global Insights and Implications
The disparity in out-of-pocket health spending across countries highlights the varied approaches to healthcare funding and policy implementation worldwide. High spending levels often correlate with economic instability, inadequate public healthcare funding, and reliance on private healthcare systems. In contrast, low spending is frequently associated with strong public healthcare systems, often supported by government funding or international aid.
Understanding these patterns is crucial for policymakers aiming to reduce the financial burden of healthcare on individuals. By examining successful models in countries with low out-of-pocket spending, nations can explore strategies to enhance public healthcare infrastructure and funding, ultimately aiming to achieve more equitable health outcomes globally.
Frequently Asked Questions About Out-of-Pocket Health Spending in 2006
Which country had the highest out-of-pocket health spending in 2006?
Comoros had the highest out-of-pocket health spending in 2006, with 79.49%.
Which country had the lowest out-of-pocket health spending in 2006?
Kiribati had the lowest out-of-pocket health spending in 2006, with 0.06%.
What was the average out-of-pocket health spending across all countries in 2006?
The average out-of-pocket health spending across all countries in 2006 was 35.41%.
What was the median out-of-pocket health spending value in 2006?
The median out-of-pocket health spending value in 2006 was 34.37%.
Which countries were in the top 3 for out-of-pocket health spending in 2006?
The top 3 countries for out-of-pocket health spending in 2006 were Comoros (79.49%), Georgia (77.26%), and Afghanistan (76.82%).
How many countries were included in the dataset for out-of-pocket health spending in 2006?
The dataset for out-of-pocket health spending in 2006 included 187 countries.
Insights by country
Romania
In 2006, Romania ranked #135 globally for Out-of-Pocket Health Spending, with a value of 19.990564 %. This figure is notably higher than the global average, indicating a significant reliance on personal funds for healthcare services. Contributing factors include a transitional economy and limited public healthcare funding, which compel many Romanians to pay out-of-pocket for medical expenses.
Libya
In 2006, Libya had an Out-of-Pocket Health Spending rate of 34.626987 %, ranking #92 out of 187 countries. This figure is notably higher than many countries in the region, indicating a significant reliance on personal health expenditures. Contributing factors include Libya's economic challenges and limited public health funding, which have historically affected access to healthcare services and increased out-of-pocket costs for citizens.
Nauru
Nauru ranked #183 globally for Out-of-Pocket Health Spending in 2006, with a value of 3.9536474 %. This figure is significantly lower than many other countries, indicating a heavy reliance on government funding for health services. The limited economic resources and small population of Nauru contribute to this low spending, as the nation faces challenges in providing comprehensive healthcare access and infrastructure.
Lesotho
In 2006, Lesotho had an Out-of-Pocket Health Spending value of 30.023184 %, ranking #109 out of 187 countries. This figure is significantly higher than the global average, indicating a heavy reliance on personal funds for health care. Contributing factors include Lesotho's limited public health infrastructure and high levels of poverty, which restrict access to affordable health services.
Philippines
In 2006, the Philippines had an Out-of-Pocket Health Spending rate of 54.035458 %, ranking #36 out of 187 countries. This figure is notably higher than the global average, indicating a significant reliance on personal funds for healthcare services. Contributing factors include a developing economy, limited public health funding, and a high prevalence of private healthcare providers, which often leads to increased out-of-pocket expenses for citizens.
Luxembourg
In 2006, Luxembourg had an Out-of-Pocket Health Spending of 13.376279 %, ranking #162 out of 187 countries. This percentage is notably higher than the global average, indicating a relatively significant reliance on personal health expenditures. Contributing factors include Luxembourg's high cost of living and a robust private health insurance market, which influences how residents finance their healthcare needs.
Mauritania
Mauritania ranked #15 globally for Out-of-Pocket Health Spending in 2006, with a value of 68.15977 %. This figure is significantly higher than the global average, indicating a heavy reliance on personal funds for healthcare. Contributing factors include limited government investment in health infrastructure and a high prevalence of poverty, which restricts access to affordable medical services.
Papua New Guinea
In 2006, Papua New Guinea ranked #178 globally for Out-of-Pocket Health Spending, with a value of 8.107342 %. This figure is significantly higher than the global average, indicating a heavy reliance on personal funds for healthcare services. Contributing factors include limited government healthcare funding and a challenging geographical landscape that complicates access to medical facilities, particularly in rural areas.
Slovakia
In 2006, Slovakia's Out-of-Pocket Health Spending was 26.588228 %, ranking #117 out of 187 countries. This percentage is notably higher than the global average, indicating a significant reliance on personal funds for healthcare. Contributing factors include a relatively underfunded public health system and economic constraints that limit government spending on health services.
Yemen
In 2006, Yemen ranked #17 globally for Out-of-Pocket Health Spending, with a value of 65.89187 %. This figure is significantly higher than many countries in the region, reflecting a lack of comprehensive health insurance systems. Contributing factors include Yemen's ongoing economic challenges, conflict, and limited access to healthcare services, which compel citizens to pay out-of-pocket for medical expenses.
Data Source
Share of out-of-pocket spending on healthcare | Our World in Data
Our World in Data is a research organization that provides comprehensive data and visualizations on various global issues, including health, economics, and education. The dataset on the share of out-of-pocket spending on healthcare offers country-level statistics on the proportion of healthcare expenses paid directly by individuals, highlighting disparities in healthcare financing across nations.
Visit Data SourceHistorical Data by Year
Explore Out-of-Pocket Health Spending data across different years. Compare trends and see how statistics have changed over time.