Chapter 2

Figure 1 – Health expenditure as a percentage of GDP (2004)
20,0
15,3
* 2003
** Forecast
15,0
% GDP, 2004 % shift of GDP, 1990-2004
11,6
10,9
10,5
10,2
10,1
10,0
10,0
9,9
9,7
9,6
9,2
9,2
9,1
8,9
8,4
8,4
8,3
8,3
8,1
8,0
8,0
7,7
7,5
7,3
7,1
6,5
6,5
5,9
5,6
10,0
Source: OECD Health Data 2006, June 2006
5,0
0,0
8 See Mennini and Francia (2003); OECD (2004b).
United States
Switzerland**
Germany*
France**
Iceland**
Belgium*
Greece**
Portugal**
Canada**
Norway
Austria
Australia*
Netherlands**
Sweden**
Denmark**
Italy
New Zeland
United Kingdom
Hungary**
Spain**
Japan* , **
Luxembourg**
Turkey
Finland
Czech Rep.**
Ireland
Mexico
Poland
Slovakia*
Korea
-1,0 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0
% GDP Rate points
[43]
0,8
0,6
0,7
0,9
1,2
1,7
1,5
1,5
2,4
2,1
2,3
2,0
2,3
1,6
2,1
butable to their level of economic development. The positive relationship between per
capita income and health expenditure per capita was confirmed and reinforced in 2004
(R 2 =0,7826 in 2004 vs. R 2 =0,6723 in 2003) as it is illustrated in Figure 3. Income certainly
constitutes a decisive factor for the growth of health expenditure in the OECD. However,
there is no single or most appropriate level of expenditure that can be used as a single
measure for all countries. While the richer countries tend to spend more resources on
health, there is considerable variation among countries with comparable levels of income.
This variation suggests that the expenditure-income relationship is weaker for rich
countries. Other factors, including policy decisions regarding the organization of the
system and regulatory aspects can be important determinants through their impact on
health expenditure 8 .
Italy, like the other advanced EU countries, shows a positive relationship between per
-0,3
1,0
1,7
1,6
1,2
2,6
2,6
2,6
2,6
2,9
CEIS Health Report 2006
3,4
3,3
3,8
4,1