Year 12 – Health and Movement Science

1.3 Compare the health status of Australia with that of other OECD countries

About the dot point

Australia’s health status can be judged by how long people live, how healthy those years are, and how much illness and early death a population experiences. In high-income nations, these patterns are shaped by a mix of health outcomes (such as life expectancy and infant mortality), the overall burden of disease, and major modifiable risk factors that drive chronic illness over time. Looking at these indicators across the OECD helps show where Australia performs strongly and where its results are weaker.

How to approach it

Because this dot point uses the directive verb compare, you must place Australia and other OECD countries side by side and show both similarities and differences on the same points each time. In this topic, that means comparing countries using consistent indicators of health status, then linking differences to the same drivers, including avoidable mortality, premature death, and key risk factors.

1. Where does Australia rank in relation to other OECD countries?

Australia’s overall health status is high in OECD terms, but it is not equally strong across every indicator. Current OECD data show that Australia performs better than the OECD average on 7 out of 10 key indicators for health status and risk factors, which places it in the top group overall. Australia tends to sit in the top group for life expectancy and healthy life expectancy, while sitting closer to the middle on some indicators such as infant mortality and certain modifiable risk factors.

1.1 Life expectancy

Australia ranks highly for life expectancy.
Australians live for about 83 years on average.
This is above the OECD average of about 81 years.
Australia sits among the leading OECD countries for longevity.
It performs alongside countries such as Japan, Switzerland, and Spain.
This shows that Australia is one of the healthier OECD countries in terms of how long people live.

1.2 Mortality

Australia also performs strongly on mortality measures.
It has relatively low rates of preventable mortality and treatable mortality compared with most OECD countries.
This means fewer Australians die from causes that could have been reduced through:
- effective public health action
- early intervention
- timely medical treatment
Australia also has a low infant mortality rate.
This is another sign of strong overall health status.

1.3 Self-rated health

Australia performs well on self-rated health.
A large proportion of Australians report their health as good or very good.
Australia is above the OECD average on this measure.
This suggests that Australians not only live long lives, but also tend to perceive their health positively.

1.4 Obesity

A clear weakness in Australia’s health profile is obesity.
Around two in three adults are overweight or obese.
This is worse than the OECD average.
This is important because obesity increases the risk of:
- type 2 diabetes
- cardiovascular disease
- some cancers
As a result, obesity is one of the main reasons Australia does not rank at the very top across all health indicators.

Overall, Australia ranks as a high-performing OECD country for health. Its main strengths are life expectancy, mortality, self-rated health, and infant mortality. Its main weakness is obesity. In simple terms, Australia sits near the top overall, but its performance is strong rather than perfect.

2. Why might this be the case?

Australia’s high ranking is best explained through linked factors: health system access, strong primary care, effective prevention, relatively favourable socioeconomic conditions, and generally supportive environmental conditions. These factors interact, rather than acting independently.

Australia’s position is also shaped by differences within the country. Overall outcomes are high, but unequal outcomes between different population groups can bring national indicators down and limit Australia’s ranking on some measures, especially where disadvantage is concentrated.

2.1 Healthcare system access

Australia’s universal health coverage through Medicare removes financial barriers to essential care, making it easier for people to get diagnosed early and manage chronic conditions over time. In OECD comparisons, this is important because health systems without universal access may provide excellent care for some people but poor access for others, which brings down overall national health outcomes.

Australia’s relatively lower out-of-pocket share of total health spending (about 15%, compared with an OECD average around 18%) supports more equitable access to GP visits, investigations, and hospital care.

Comparative measures often cited in OECD summaries include:

Treatable mortality around 47 per 100,000 in Australia compared with an OECD average around 79
Preventable mortality around 97 per 100,000 compared with an OECD average around 158.

These measures show how health systems and prevention policies reduce deaths that could be avoided with timely care and strong public health.

Australia’s system also includes structural supports beyond acute care, including the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), which lowers the cost of many essential medicines, and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), which supports functioning and participation for eligible people with disability.

2.2 Prevention and public health policy

Australia ranks strongly in part because long-term prevention has reduced exposure to major risks. The clearest example is tobacco control. Australia has among the lowest smoking rates in the OECD, with daily smoking often reported around 8 to 11% of adults. Policies such as high tobacco taxation, plain packaging, advertising restrictions, smoke-free laws, and quit support have reduced smoking-related disease over time.

Prevention also affects injuries and infections. Road safety laws, public health campaigns, and immunisation programmes contribute to lower rates of preventable death across the lifespan. Australia’s leadership in programmes such as HPV vaccination shows how prevention can reduce future cancer burden, supporting higher healthy life expectancy and lower burden of disease.

Example: Plain packaging makes cigarette packets less visible and less attractive. Over time, fewer people smoke, which leads to lower rates of COPD and cardiovascular disease, helping to improve national life expectancy.

2.3 Socioeconomic conditions

Health is strongly shaped by social determinants, particularly income and education. Australia’s relatively high median income supports access to stable housing, nutritious food, safer work, and health-promoting environments. Australia’s education profile is also strong, with about 51% of adults aged 25 to 64 reported as having tertiary education, above an OECD average around 41%. Higher education levels are linked to health literacy, earlier help-seeking, better navigation of health services, and greater uptake of prevention such as screening and vaccination.

Socioeconomic advantage is not evenly distributed. Disadvantaged communities, some rural and remote areas, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities can face barriers such as service access, cost, housing stress, and higher risk exposure. These gaps within the country can affect national averages and limit Australia’s ranking on measures such as infant mortality and chronic disease burden.

Example: Two adults with type 2 diabetes can have very different health results depending on whether they can afford to see their GP regularly, get support from allied health professionals, and pay for their medications. When many people face this problem, it lowers the country’s ranking for burden of disease and healthy life expectancy.

2.4 Environment

Australia’s environmental conditions contribute to health in OECD comparisons. Average urban air pollution levels are relatively low by OECD standards, with PM2.5 often reported around 8 μg/m³ compared with an OECD average around 11 μg/m³. Lower pollution exposure contributes to fewer respiratory and cardiovascular harms, supporting lower mortality from pollution-related disease (figures such as 7 deaths per 100,000 in Australia compared with around 29 per 100,000 across the OECD are commonly used to illustrate this difference).

The built environment also matters. Many Australians benefit from outdoor spaces and opportunities to play sport, which supports heart health. However, relying on cars in many suburbs and regional areas can reduce everyday physical activity, which combines with diet to increase obesity risk. This helps explain why Australia can have excellent life expectancy while still facing a relatively high risk of chronic disease in the future.

Example: In a walkable inner-city area with safe footpaths and nearby shops, people naturally walk more as part of their daily routine. In a car-dependent suburb with limited public transport, physical activity is less likely to happen automatically, which can lead to higher obesity rates over time.

3. Why do some countries rank higher or lower than Australia?

Countries rank higher than Australia when fewer people are exposed to major long-term health risks, when health systems prevent and treat illness more effectively, and when social and policy conditions make good health easier to achieve and maintain. Countries rank lower than Australia when chronic disease risks are more common, healthcare is harder to access, and wider living conditions make poor health more likely.

3.1 Higher than Australia

Lower obesity and lower long-term disease risk	One clear reason some countries rank above Australia is that fewer people live with obesity, which lowers the population’s risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and some cancers over many years. Australia’s obesity prevalence is 30.4%, while Japan is 4.6%, Korea is 7.0%, and Switzerland is 11.3%. This helps explain why those countries can achieve very strong life expectancy outcomes. In simple terms, when fewer people carry a major chronic disease risk across their lives, fewer people develop serious illness early, and national health status improves.
Less avoidable deaths	Another reason some countries rank above Australia is that they record fewer deaths from causes that health systems should be able to reduce. Preventable mortality refers to deaths that could often be reduced through strong public health action and early prevention. Treatable mortality refers to deaths that could often be reduced through timely and effective healthcare after a condition has developed. Australia already performs well, with 97 preventable deaths per 100,000 and 47 treatable deaths per 100,000, but Japan is lower on preventable mortality at 85, and Switzerland is lower on both preventable mortality at 94 and treatable mortality at 39. Korea also records lower treatable mortality at 43. These lower rates help push those countries slightly ahead because fewer people are dying from conditions that could have been avoided or better managed.
Greater access to care and early intervention	Countries that rank above Australia also tend to combine good health habits with strong access to care. Japan covers the whole population for a core set of services, with 12% out-of-pocket spending, and Switzerland also covers the whole population and reports only 0.5% of people with unmet needs. Korea also covers the whole population. This matters because when people can get care earlier, they are more likely to receive diagnosis, treatment, and ongoing management before illness becomes more severe. That does not mean these countries have perfect systems, but it does help explain why their overall outcomes can be slightly better.
Stronger prevention and public policy	Countries above Australia also tend to use public policy very effectively to reduce health risks before they cause serious harm. This includes policies that support early screening, strong primary care, disease prevention, and healthier living conditions. The reason this improves national health status is simple: when governments reduce risk earlier, fewer people become seriously ill later. This helps lower both preventable mortality and long-term burden of disease. Countries such as Japan, Korea, and Switzerland do not rank highly just because they treat illness well. They also rank highly because prevention and early action reduce the number of people reaching severe illness in the first place.
Better socioeconomic conditions	Some countries also rank above Australia because their broader socioeconomic conditions make it easier for people to stay healthy. Higher income, stable employment, strong education, and good access to services all support better health. These conditions affect health because they make it easier for people to afford nutritious food, safe housing, transport, healthcare, and time for prevention and recovery. Countries such as Switzerland benefit from these advantages. This helps explain why strong national wealth and stable living conditions can contribute to high life expectancy and lower avoidable death.

3.2 Lower than Australia

More obesity and more chronic disease	Countries that rank below Australia often have a heavier burden of chronic disease because more people live with major long-term health risks. The clearest examples are the United States and Mexico. Australia’s obesity prevalence is 30.4%, but the United States is 42.8% and Mexico is 36.0%. Both countries also have diabetes prevalence above the OECD average. This matters because higher obesity and diabetes rates increase the likelihood of serious chronic illness across the population, which lowers overall health status and life expectancy.
More barriers to healthcare	Another major reason countries rank below Australia is that access to healthcare is less even. Australia covers the whole population for a core set of services and has 15% out-of-pocket spending. By contrast, the United States covers 91% of the population for a core set of services, while Mexico covers 72%. Mexico also has very high out-of-pocket spending at 41% of health expenditure. These barriers matter because when more people delay care, skip treatment, or struggle to pay for services, health problems are more likely to worsen before they are treated.
Avoidable deaths	The clearest sign of why these countries rank below Australia is that they have many more deaths from causes that could have been reduced through prevention or treatment. Australia records 97 preventable deaths per 100,000 and 47 treatable deaths per 100,000. The United States records 238 preventable and 98 treatable deaths per 100,000. Mexico records 435 preventable and 230 treatable deaths per 100,000. Their life expectancy is also much lower, at 76.4 years in the United States and 75.4 years in Mexico, compared with 83.3 years in Australia. This makes the link very clear: when more people die from avoidable causes, the country’s overall health status falls.
Unhealthier lifestyles	Countries below Australia often also have more common lifestyle risks, such as poor diet, low physical activity, harmful alcohol use, and higher levels of obesity. These factors matter because they increase the chance that large numbers of people will develop chronic conditions over time. In other words, unhealthier lifestyles increase illness across the population, and that lowers the country’s overall ranking. The United States and Mexico are useful examples because their stronger chronic disease patterns are linked to these long-term lifestyle risks.
Poorer environmental conditions	Some countries rank below Australia because their environmental conditions create more harm to health. Poor air quality, unsafe built environments, and unhealthy living conditions increase the risk of respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, injury, and other long-term health problems. Australia benefits from relatively favourable environmental conditions in many areas, which supports better overall health outcomes. By contrast, where pollution and unhealthy environments are more common, more people experience illness and early death, which lowers national health status.
Greater economic pressure and instability	Countries can also rank below Australia when economic pressure makes it harder for individuals and governments to protect health consistently. Lower incomes, greater inequality, weaker financial protection, and instability in daily living conditions can all reduce access to healthcare, healthy food, stable housing, and prevention. This matters because health is shaped not only by hospitals and doctors, but also by whether people can afford the conditions needed to stay well. Mexico shows this clearly, because lower health spending and greater reliance on direct patient payments contribute to poorer outcomes. The United States also shows that even very high spending does not guarantee strong results if access and living conditions are uneven across the population.

4. What can we learn from other countries that may be applied to the Australian context?

International comparison is useful because it shows which strategies have improved health outcomes in other countries and could be adapted to Australia. The most relevant lessons are to invest more in prevention, improve the food environment, strengthen primary care, expand mental health access, improve system integration, provide more community-based care for older people, reduce health inequities, and support more co-designed Indigenous health programs.

Invest more in prevention	One of the clearest lessons from other countries is that Australia should invest more in prevention. Prevention improves health by reducing exposure to risk before disease develops, rather than waiting until people become sick and then relying on treatment. Countries that invest strongly in prevention tend to achieve better long-term outcomes because fewer people develop chronic conditions in the first place. This is especially important in areas such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, and other preventable chronic illnesses.
Improve processed foods and food policy	Australia can also learn from countries that have made the food environment healthier through government policy. In the United Kingdom, the Soft Drinks Industry Levy encouraged manufacturers to reduce the sugar content of their drinks. In Denmark, restrictions on industrially produced trans fats changed the food supply so effectively that foods once known as major sources of trans fat are now trans fat free. In Chile, warning labels and tighter rules on unhealthy products reduced the proportion of packaged foods classified as high in critical nutrients. These examples show that governments can improve health by placing stronger restrictions on harmful ingredients in processed foods, such as excess sugar, sodium, and trans fats, rather than relying only on individuals to make healthier choices.
Strengthen primary care	Another clear lesson is that Australia can improve health outcomes by strengthening primary care. Strong primary care makes prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up easier to access because support is provided closer to where people live. Portugal is a useful example. Its reforms have improved the role of primary care in managing chronic disease and reducing avoidable hospital admissions. This shows that stronger primary care can keep more people well enough to stay out of hospital and can improve both efficiency and health outcomes across the system.
Expand mental health access	Australia can also learn from countries that make mental health support easier to access earlier and closer to everyday life. In the United Kingdom, the KeyRing model provides community-based support for people with mental health conditions through local neighbourhood networks. This approach has been linked with lower psychiatric inpatient use, less homelessness, and lower reliance on intensive crisis-based support. The lesson for Australia is that mental health care should not rely too heavily on hospitals or crisis services. Expanding access through local and community-based support can improve outcomes and reduce system pressure.
Improve system integration	Australia can also improve by making health services work together more effectively. System integration means that primary care, community care, hospital care, and other services are connected rather than fragmented. This matters because people with chronic disease, mental health conditions, or complex needs often move between different services. If these services do not communicate well, care becomes harder to access and less effective. Countries that improve integration make it easier for people to receive continuous care, which helps reduce unnecessary hospital use and improves long-term health outcomes.
Increase community-based care for older people	Another important lesson is that Australia needs more community-based care for older people. An ageing population cannot be supported by hospitals alone. In Japan, the Community-Based Integrated Care System links healthcare, nursing care, prevention, housing, and daily support so older people can remain in their communities for longer. In Denmark, preventive home visits have reduced the risk of hospital admission among older people. These examples show that community-based support can help older people remain independent, improve their quality of life, and reduce unnecessary pressure on hospitals and residential care.
Reduce health inequities	Australia can also improve overall health outcomes by reducing health inequities. Countries with stronger results tend to improve health not only by strengthening healthcare, but also by addressing the wider social conditions that shape health. In Costa Rica, local governments and primary care teams worked together to address issues such as poverty, unemployment, community safety, and adolescent drug use. This shows that reducing inequities works best when health is linked with action across housing, education, employment, safety, and community support. For Australia, this is important because national health outcomes will improve when groups with the poorest health outcomes experience better health.
Support more co-designed Indigenous health programs	A particularly important lesson for Australia is the need for more co-designed Indigenous health programs. International examples show that Indigenous health outcomes improve when programs are community-led, co-designed, and built around Indigenous authority rather than imposed through a one-size-fits-all model. In New Zealand, Whakamaua: Māori Health Action Plan 2020–2025 was developed with strong Māori involvement and focuses on Māori authority, equity, and accountability. The lesson for Australia is that improving health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples requires more than additional services. It requires stronger community control, culturally safe care, and programs designed with communities rather than for them.

Brief Summary

About the dot point and how to approach it

Australia’s health status is judged by life expectancy, healthy life expectancy, and burden of disease.
To compare, place Australia and other OECD countries side by side using consistent indicators and link differences to avoidable mortality, premature death, and key risk factors.

1. Where does Australia rank in relation to other OECD countries?

Australia performs well compared with most OECD countries and is generally placed in the top group overall for health status.
Strengths include life expectancy, low preventable mortality and treatable mortality, and strong self-rated health.
A key weakness is obesity, with around two in three adults overweight or obese, worse than the OECD average.

2. Why might this be the case?

Australia’s high ranking is linked to health system access, strong primary care, effective prevention, relatively favourable socioeconomic conditions, and supportive environmental conditions.
Medicare supports universal health coverage and lower out-of-pocket costs, supporting more equitable access and lower avoidable deaths.
Long-term prevention (especially tobacco control) reduces exposure to major risks and improves long-term outcomes.
Unequal outcomes between population groups can bring national indicators down where disadvantage is concentrated.

3. Why do some countries rank higher or lower than Australia?

Countries rank higher when long-term risks (especially obesity) are lower and preventable and treatable mortality are lower.
Countries rank lower when obesity and chronic disease risks are more common, healthcare access is harder, and avoidable deaths are higher.
The United States and Mexico illustrate how higher obesity, more access barriers, and higher avoidable mortality are linked to lower life expectancy than Australia.

4. What can we learn from other countries that may be applied to the Australian context?

Invest more in prevention. This matters because prevention reduces exposure to risk factors before disease develops, lowering future burden of disease and improving long-term life expectancy.
Improve the food environment by reducing harmful ingredients in processed foods. This helps because changing what is available and marketed (for example, less added sugar, salt, and trans fats) makes healthier choices easier and lowers population risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes.
Strengthen primary care. This improves health status because strong primary care supports earlier diagnosis, ongoing chronic disease management, and prevention, which reduces avoidable mortality and avoidable hospital admissions.
Expand mental health access. This is important because earlier, more accessible support can reduce crisis presentations, improve quality of life, and reduce flow-on impacts to physical health and functioning over time.
Improve system integration. This matters because when services communicate and coordinate, people experience fewer gaps in care, smoother follow-up, and better outcomes for complex and long-term conditions.
Increase community-based care for older people. This helps because supporting older people at home can maintain independence, prevent falls and complications, and reduce avoidable hospital and residential care admissions.
Reduce health inequities. This improves overall national results because the biggest gains come from lifting outcomes for groups with the poorest health, which reduces gaps in life expectancy and lowers preventable illness and early death.
Support more co-designed Indigenous health programs. This matters because community-led, culturally safe programs improve trust, access, and relevance of care, supporting better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.