What is life expectancy at birth?

Australia is one of the OECD's strongest performers - around 83 years total (2023 OECD figures; AIHW reports roughly 81 for males and 85 for females). Only a small group of countries rank clearly above Australia: Japan, Switzerland, Spain, Italy and South Korea among them. This is a genuine top-tier result.

Australia has low infant mortality (about 3 per 1000 live births, 2022) and falling avoidable (preventable) mortality, especially from cardiovascular disease, where age-standardised death rates have fallen markedly over decades. Australia is below the OECD average for premature mortality on most measures, though the Nordic countries, Japan and Estonia report even lower infant mortality (around 2 per 1000).

What is overweight and obesity?

This is Australia's clear weakness. Approximately two-thirds of Australian adults are overweight or obese (about 66 percent; AIHW/ABS), with around 1 in 3 adults (about 31 percent) in the obese range. Australia ranks among the higher-obesity OECD countries, well above Japan and South Korea (adult obesity under about 7 percent) and worse than most of Western Europe.

What is health expenditure as a share of GDP?

Australia spends approximately 10 percent of GDP on health (2022 to 2023), close to the OECD average. The United States is a dramatic outlier at roughly 16 to 17 percent of GDP (2022) - far more than any other OECD country - yet has worse outcomes. This contrast is the single most exam-useful fact in the topic.

What are risk factors?

The countries above Australia on life expectancy (Japan, South Korea, much of Western Europe and the Mediterranean) tend to have lower obesity and, in some, lower smoking. Lower population risk factors mean less Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer, which lifts longevity. Australia's high overweight and obesity is the single biggest behavioural drag on its ranking.

What is system design - access and equity?

Countries with universal, accessible primary care and low cost barriers (Japan, the Nordics, most of Western Europe, and Australia via Medicare) catch chronic disease earlier and treat it. The United States is the cautionary case: it spends by far the most (about 17 percent of GDP) but its fragmented private-insurance model leaves many uninsured or underinsured, so access is unequal and avoidable mortality is higher. Spending does not buy outcomes; equitable access does.

What is within-country inequity?

A national average can hide large internal gaps. Australia's average is pulled down by the roughly 8-year life-expectancy gap for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples - an inequity that the top OECD performers, with smaller internal gaps, do not carry to the same degree.

§-Syllabus dot point

NSWHealth and Movement ScienceSyllabus dot point

How does the health status of Australians compare with that of people in other countries?

Compare the health status of Australians with that of selected OECD countries using indicators such as life expectancy, mortality, overweight and obesity, and health expenditure, and explain the reasons for the differences

A focused HSC Health and Movement Science answer comparing Australia's health status with other OECD countries. Covers Australia's rankings on life expectancy, mortality, overweight and obesity and health expenditure as a share of GDP, why some countries rank higher or lower, and the lessons for Australia.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.89 min answerUpdated 2026-06-02

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

Jump to a section

What this sub-topic is asking
The answer
Examples in context
Try this

What this sub-topic is asking

NESA wants you to benchmark Australia's health status against comparable high-income countries (the OECD), using standard indicators - life expectancy, mortality, overweight and obesity, and health expenditure as a share of GDP - and then explain WHY Australia ranks where it does and what the comparison teaches us.

The answer

The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) is a group of around 38 mostly high-income countries. Because they share a similar level of economic development, the OECD is the fair, like-for-like peer group against which Australia's health status is judged, using standardised, age-adjusted data (e.g. the OECD's Health at a Glance reports).

Where Australia ranks

Life expectancy at birth: Australia is one of the OECD's strongest performers - around 83 years total (2023 OECD figures; AIHW reports roughly 81 for males and 85 for females). Only a small group of countries rank clearly above Australia: Japan, Switzerland, Spain, Italy and South Korea among them. This is a genuine top-tier result.
Mortality: Australia has low infant mortality (about 3 per 1000 live births, 2022) and falling avoidable (preventable) mortality, especially from cardiovascular disease, where age-standardised death rates have fallen markedly over decades. Australia is below the OECD average for premature mortality on most measures, though the Nordic countries, Japan and Estonia report even lower infant mortality (around 2 per 1000).
Overweight and obesity: This is Australia's clear weakness. Approximately two-thirds of Australian adults are overweight or obese (about 66 percent; AIHW/ABS), with around 1 in 3 adults (about 31 percent) in the obese range. Australia ranks among the higher-obesity OECD countries, well above Japan and South Korea (adult obesity under about 7 percent) and worse than most of Western Europe. Only the United States and a few others rank clearly worse.
Health expenditure as a share of GDP: Australia spends approximately 10 percent of GDP on health (2022 to 2023), close to the OECD average. The United States is a dramatic outlier at roughly 16 to 17 percent of GDP (2022) - far more than any other OECD country - yet has worse outcomes. This contrast is the single most exam-useful fact in the topic.

Figure: Australia in the OECD

Figure: spending does not buy outcomes

Why some countries rank higher or lower

Risk factors (behavioural determinants): The countries above Australia on life expectancy (Japan, South Korea, much of Western Europe and the Mediterranean) tend to have lower obesity and, in some, lower smoking. Lower population risk factors mean less Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer, which lifts longevity. Australia's high overweight and obesity is the single biggest behavioural drag on its ranking.
System design - access and equity: Countries with universal, accessible primary care and low cost barriers (Japan, the Nordics, most of Western Europe, and Australia via Medicare) catch chronic disease earlier and treat it. The United States is the cautionary case: it spends by far the most (about 17 percent of GDP) but its fragmented private-insurance model leaves many uninsured or underinsured, so access is unequal and avoidable mortality is higher. Spending does not buy outcomes; equitable access does.
Within-country inequity: A national average can hide large internal gaps. Australia's average is pulled down by the roughly 8-year life-expectancy gap for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples - an inequity that the top OECD performers, with smaller internal gaps, do not carry to the same degree.

Lessons for Australia

Prevention of overweight and obesity is the priority. This is the indicator on which Australia ranks worst against its peers, and it threatens the longevity advantage Australia currently enjoys. Diet, physical activity and food-environment (supply-side) policy are the levers.
Protect equitable access. Australia's good outcomes on moderate spending show Medicare works - the US comparison shows what happens when access is unequal. Defending and extending bulk-billing and primary-care access protects the ranking.
Close the internal gap. Improving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health (the Closing the Gap framework) would lift the national average AND address a structural injustice.
Spend well, not just more. Efficiency and equity of spending matter more than the total share of GDP.

In plain English

Think of the OECD as Australia's "school year group" - a fair bunch of countries to be compared with, because they are all about as wealthy. On the report card, Australia gets an A for how long people live (near the top of the class) and an A for value-for-money (good results without spending the most). But Australia gets a D for healthy weight: about two-thirds of adults are above a healthy weight, far more than top students like Japan. And the class clown is the United States - it spends way more pocket money than anyone, yet finishes near the bottom for life expectancy, because its money is spread unfairly and lots of people can't get care. The lesson for Australia: the best students aren't the ones who spend the most - they're the ones who keep their people healthy and make sure everyone can see a doctor.

Worked examples

1. Short-answer (4 marks): "Compare Australia and the United States on health spending and life expectancy, and explain the result." The United States spends far more on health (about 17 percent of GDP, 2022) than Australia (about 10 percent), yet Australian life expectancy (about 83 years, 2023) is roughly 6 to 7 years higher than the US (about 77). The explanation is system design and equity: Australia's near-universal Medicare access converts moderate spending into top-tier outcomes, whereas the fragmented US private-insurance system leaves many without affordable access, so preventable deaths are higher. Higher spending therefore does not produce better outcomes; equitable access does.

Marker's note: full marks need the figures (with a year) on BOTH indicators for BOTH countries, an explicit comparison, and the access/equity reason - not just "the US is unhealthy".

2. Data item (5 marks): "Adult obesity is about 5 percent in Japan and about 31 percent in Australia. Using this, explain one reason Japan outranks Australia on life expectancy, and one lesson for Australia." Japan's far lower obesity (about 5 percent versus about 31 percent) means a much smaller population burden of Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, both of which shorten life - so lower obesity is a behavioural determinant that helps lift Japan's life expectancy above Australia's. The lesson for Australia is that prevention of overweight and obesity (diet, physical activity, food-environment policy) is the highest-value place to act, because it is the indicator on which Australia ranks worst against comparable countries.

Marker's note: markers reward using the supplied data, naming the mechanism (obesity to chronic disease to mortality), and giving a prevention-focused, specific lesson rather than "exercise more".

3. Extended-response paragraph (band 6): "To what extent does Australia's OECD ranking reveal weaknesses as well as strengths?" Australia's OECD ranking is strong but uneven. Its strengths are real: life expectancy of around 83 years (2023) sits near the OECD top, achieved on health spending of about 10 percent of GDP - efficient, and far below the United States' roughly 17 percent (whose life expectancy is about 6 to 7 years lower). Yet the comparison also exposes a clear weakness: with about two-thirds of adults overweight or obese - against under about 7 percent obesity in Japan and South Korea - Australia carries a behavioural-risk burden that threatens its future longevity through Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. To the extent the ranking flatters Australia, it does so by averaging away the roughly 8-year Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander life-expectancy gap. The comparison therefore reveals a population that is strong on access and longevity but exposed on prevention and internal equity.

Marker's note: a "to what extent" answer must reach a calibrated judgement (strong but uneven) and weigh BOTH sides with named OECD comparators, figures and a year - and handle the average-masks-inequity point. A one-sided "Australia is great" answer caps low.

Common traps

Comparing Australia with low-income countries: The benchmark is the OECD (comparable high-income peers), not the global average. Choose the right comparison group.
Treating high spending as proof of a good system: The United States spends the most share of GDP and ranks among the worst on outcomes. Quote that contrast; do not assume more money means better health.
Listing indicators without comparing: "Compare" means show Australia ABOVE or BELOW named OECD countries, with data - not describe Australia alone.
Quoting figures with no year: OECD data updates annually. Always attach an approximate year (e.g. "2023 OECD") and flag any figure you are unsure of.
Forgetting the internal gap: A strong ranking can hide inequity. The roughly 8-year Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander life-expectancy gap pulls the Australian average down and must be acknowledged.

How to nail the comparison question

Read the command word. "Compare" wants similarities AND differences with named countries; "explain" wants reasons (mechanisms); "assess/analyse the extent" wants a calibrated judgement.
Pick a strong and a weak indicator. Lead with life expectancy and spend (Australia's strengths) and obesity (Australia's weakness) - it shows balance.
Always name a comparator. Japan and South Korea (above Australia, low obesity) and the United States (high spend, poor outcomes) are the two most exam-useful anchors.
Attach data with a year to every claim, and round sensibly (about 83 years, about 10 percent of GDP).
Use a determinants lens for the "why": risk factors (obesity, smoking), system design (access/equity), and within-country inequity.
For data/stimulus items, quote the numbers FROM the stimulus in your answer - markers look for it.

Examples in context

Example 1. The United States as the spending outlier. The United States spends roughly 16 to 17 percent of GDP on health (2022 OECD) - far more than any other OECD country and well above Australia's roughly 10 percent - yet records a life expectancy around 77 years, about 6 to 7 years below Australia, with higher infant mortality and the OECD's highest obesity (around 42 percent of adults). This is the textbook demonstration that total health spending and health outcomes are only weakly linked: the US system is fragmented, access is unequal, and a large share of spending is absorbed by high-cost acute care and administration rather than equitable prevention and primary care. Use the US as the anchor for any "spending does not buy outcomes" argument.

Example 2. Japan and South Korea as the low-obesity benchmark. Japan (life expectancy around 84) and South Korea both report adult obesity under about 7 percent - against around 31 percent in Australia - and both rank at or above Australia on life expectancy. Their advantage is largely a whole-population behavioural and dietary profile (traditional low-fat, fish-and-vegetable diets, smaller portions, active daily transport) plus accessible primary care. They are the clean comparator for showing how a low-risk-factor population lifts longevity, and they frame Australia's most actionable lesson: reduce overweight and obesity.

Try this

Q1. Identify the OECD and outline why it is used as Australia's comparison group for health status. [3 marks]

Cue. OECD = around 38 high-income countries; a fair like-for-like benchmark at a similar level of development, with standardised comparable data.

Q2. STIMULUS. Japan spends about 11 percent of GDP on health with a life expectancy of about 84 years; the United States spends about 17 percent with a life expectancy of about 77 years. Using the data, explain what this shows about the link between health spending and outcomes. [4 marks]

Cue. The bigger spender (US) has the lower life expectancy; spending does not buy outcomes; access, equity and risk factors drive results; quote both figures.

Q3. Analyse Australia's health status relative to other OECD countries, and assess the extent to which the comparison reveals both strengths and weaknesses. [8 marks]

Cue. Strengths: life expectancy around 83 (2023), low infant mortality, efficient spend (about 10 percent of GDP). Weaknesses: obesity (about two-thirds of adults) and the roughly 8-year Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander gap. Name comparators (Japan, South Korea, US), attach data with a year, reach a calibrated "strong but uneven" judgement.

Practice questions

Original practice questions graded from foundation to exam level, each with a full worked solution. Try them before revealing the solution.

foundation3 marksIdentify the OECD and outline why it is used as Australia's comparison group for health status.

Show worked solution →

Identify. The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) is a group of around 38 mostly high-income, industrialised countries.

Why it is the comparison group. These countries are at a similar level of economic development to Australia, so comparing health status against the OECD is a fair, like-for-like benchmark (rather than comparing Australia with low-income countries where outcomes differ for reasons of poverty and infrastructure). The OECD also publishes standardised, age-adjusted data (e.g. Health at a Glance), which makes the indicators comparable across countries.

Markers reward (1) correctly naming the OECD as high-income comparison countries, (2) the like-for-like benchmarking point, (3) reference to standardised comparable data.

foundation4 marksDescribe Australia's performance on TWO OECD health indicators - one on which it ranks well and one on which it ranks poorly. Use approximate data with a year.

Show worked solution →

Indicator Australia does well on - life expectancy. Australian life expectancy at birth is around 83 years total (2023 OECD figures), placing Australia near the top of the OECD, comparable with Switzerland and behind only a handful of countries such as Japan.

Indicator Australia does poorly on - overweight and obesity. Approximately two-thirds of Australian adults are overweight or obese (about 66 percent; AIHW/ABS), with around 1 in 3 adults in the obese range. This is well above low-obesity OECD countries such as Japan and South Korea (under about 7 percent obese).

Markers reward (1) one well-ranked indicator with data and year, (2) one poorly-ranked indicator with data and year, (3) the indicators correctly described (not just named), (4) an explicit OECD comparison point for each.

core5 marksSTIMULUS. The table shows selected OECD indicators (approximate, early 2020s). | Country | Life expectancy (years) | Adult obesity (%) | Health spend (% GDP) | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Japan | 84 | 5 | 11 | | Australia | 83 | 31 | 10 | | United States | 77 | 42 | 17 | Using the data, compare the three countries and explain what the figures suggest about the relationship between health spending and health outcomes.

Show worked solution →

Compare the data. Japan has the highest life expectancy (84) with the lowest obesity (5 percent) and mid-range spending (11 percent of GDP). Australia is close behind on life expectancy (83) but with far higher obesity (31 percent) and slightly lower spending (10 percent). The United States spends the most by a wide margin (17 percent of GDP) yet has the lowest life expectancy (77) and the highest obesity (42 percent).

What the figures suggest. Spending does not buy outcomes. The US spends roughly 1.7 times Japan's share of GDP on health but has a life expectancy about 7 years lower. The driver of outcomes is not the total dollars but how the money is used - the US system is fragmented and access is unequal (many uninsured or underinsured), while Japan combines near-universal access with a low-risk-factor population (low obesity). Australia sits between them: good access and good life expectancy, but obesity is a clear weakness that, if unaddressed, threatens future gains.

Markers reward (1) accurate reading of all three rows, (2) an explicit comparison (not three separate descriptions), (3) the key inference that spending and outcomes are weakly linked, (4) at least one reason (access/equity or risk factors) for the US outlier, (5) data quoted from the table to support the argument.

core5 marksExplain TWO reasons why some OECD countries rank above Australia on life expectancy.

Show worked solution →

A 5-mark explain needs two reasons, each developed with a mechanism (not just named).

Reason 1 - lower obesity and better diet. Top performers such as Japan and South Korea have adult obesity under about 7 percent, compared with around 31 percent in Australia. A lower body-mass profile reduces the population burden of Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and several cancers, which lifts life expectancy. The traditional East Asian diet (fish, vegetables, smaller portions) is a behavioural determinant operating across the whole population.

Reason 2 - equitable access and strong primary care. Countries such as Japan and many in Western Europe combine universal coverage with strong, accessible primary care, which catches and manages chronic disease earlier. Australia performs well here too (Medicare), but small differences in primary-care access and prevention spending compound over a lifetime.

(Other valid reasons: lower smoking rates in some countries; smaller within-country inequities; Australia's average is pulled down by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander life-expectancy gap of around 8 years.)

Markers reward (1) two distinct reasons, (2) each developed with a mechanism linking the determinant to mortality/longevity, (3) supporting data with a comparison to Australia.

core4 marksSTIMULUS. Australia spends about 10 percent of GDP on health (2022 to 2023), close to the OECD average, while the United States spends about 17 percent. Using a determinants-of-health perspective, explain why higher spending has not given the United States better health outcomes than Australia.

Show worked solution →

The headline: The United States spends a much larger share of GDP on health than Australia (about 17 percent versus about 10 percent), yet has lower life expectancy and higher obesity, infant mortality and avoidable mortality.
Sociocultural and economic determinants - access and equity: The US relies heavily on private insurance, so a significant share of the population is uninsured or underinsured. Cost becomes a barrier to care, prevention and chronic-disease management, so preventable deaths are higher. Much US spending is concentrated on high-cost acute and administrative activity rather than equitable primary care and prevention.
Conclusion: Outcomes are shaped by how equitably care is accessed and by the population's risk factors, not by total spending. Australia's near-universal Medicare access converts a smaller spend into better outcomes.

Markers reward (1) the spending-versus-outcomes contrast quoted with the figures, (2) an explicit determinants-of-health lens (access/equity, sociocultural/economic), (3) the mechanism linking unequal access to worse outcomes, (4) a clear conclusion.

exam8 marksAnalyse Australia's health status relative to other OECD countries, and assess the extent to which the comparison reveals both strengths and weaknesses in the Australian population's health.

Show worked solution →

Band-6 plan (thesis + argument lines).

Thesis: Against the OECD, Australia is a strong but uneven performer - excellent on longevity and access, but with a serious behavioural-risk weakness (overweight and obesity) and a large internal equity gap that the national average conceals.

Argument line 1 - strengths. Life expectancy around 83 years (2023), near the OECD top; low infant mortality (about 3 per 1000, 2022); efficient spending (about 10 percent of GDP, near the OECD average) that delivers near-top outcomes - contrast the US (about 17 percent of GDP, life expectancy about 77).

Argument line 2 - weaknesses. Overweight and obesity affect about two-thirds of adults (about 31 percent obese), far above Japan and South Korea (under about 7 percent), threatening future gains via Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Argument line 3 - the average masks inequity. The roughly 8-year Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander life-expectancy gap means the headline ranking hides a structural inequity that top OECD performers (with smaller internal gaps) do not carry to the same degree.

Judgement: the comparison reveals real strengths but the strengths are partly behavioural luck and system access, not invulnerability - the obesity trend and the equity gap are the genuine risks.

Model paragraph. Australia's OECD ranking is genuinely strong: life expectancy at birth of around 83 years (2023) sits near the top of the OECD, and Australia achieves this on health spending of around 10 percent of GDP - close to the OECD average and far below the United States' roughly 17 percent, whose life expectancy is about 7 years lower. This shows that Australia's near-universal Medicare access converts moderate spending into top-tier longevity, an efficiency strength. However, the comparison also exposes a clear weakness: with about two-thirds of adults overweight or obese - against under about 7 percent obesity in Japan and South Korea - Australia carries a behavioural-risk burden that its rivals do not. Because obesity drives Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, this threatens the very life-expectancy advantage Australia currently enjoys. To the extent that the comparison flatters Australia, it does so by averaging away the roughly 8-year Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander life-expectancy gap, so the true picture is a strong but uneven population whose future ranking depends on prevention.

Marker's note. A top response sustains an argument that answers "to what extent" with a calibrated judgement (strong but uneven), not a list. It uses named OECD comparators (Japan, South Korea, US) with figures and a year, deploys a determinants-of-health lens for the weaknesses, and explicitly handles the average-masks-inequity point. Weaker responses describe Australia in isolation, omit data, or treat "good ranking" as the whole story.