In 2023, Singapore dominated the ranking of the world's health and health systems, followed by Japan and South Korea. The health index score is calculated by evaluating various indicators that assess the health of the population, and access to the services required to sustain good health, including health outcomes, health systems, sickness and risk factors, and mortality rates. The health and health system index score of the top ten countries with the best healthcare system in the world ranged between 82 and 86.9, measured on a scale of zero to 100.

Global Health Security Index  Numerous health and health system indexes have been developed to assess various attributes and aspects of a nation's healthcare system. One such measure is the Global Health Security (GHS) index. This index evaluates the ability of 195 nations to identify, assess, and mitigate biological hazards in addition to political and socioeconomic concerns, the quality of their healthcare systems, and their compliance with international finance and standards. In 2021, the United States was ranked at the top of the GHS index, but due to multiple reasons, the U.S. government failed to effectively manage the COVID-19 pandemic. The GHS Index evaluates capability and identifies preparation gaps; nevertheless, it cannot predict a nation's resource allocation in case of a public health emergency.

Universal Health Coverage Index  Another health index that is used globally by the members of the United Nations (UN) is the universal health care (UHC) service coverage index. The UHC index monitors the country's progress related to the sustainable developmental goal (SDG) number three. The UHC service coverage index tracks 14 indicators related to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health, infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases, service capacity, and access to care. The main target of universal health coverage is to ensure that no one is denied access to essential medical services due to financial hardships. In 2021, the UHC index scores ranged from as low as 21 to a high score of 91 across 194 countries. 

The healthcare ranking reflects the quality of health care and access to health services in different countries. The assessment includes various factors such as life expectancy, access to medical services, healthcare funding, and technologies.

According to a 2021 health care systems ranking among selected high-income countries, the U.S. came last in the overall ranking of its health care system performance. The overall ranking was based on five performance categories, including access to care, care process, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes. For the category access to care, which measures affordability and timeliness of health care, the U.S. also ranked last, whilst the Netherlands took first place. This statistic illustrates the access to care rankings of the United States' health care system compared to ten other high-income countries in 2021.

In 2023, the health care system in Finland ranked first with a care index score of ****, followed by Belgium and Japan. Care systems index score is measured using multiple indicators from various public databases, it evaluates the capacity of a health system to treat and cure diseases and illnesses, once it is detected in the population This statistic shows the care systems ranking of countries worldwide in 2023, by their index score.

In 2023, Norway ranked first with a health index score of 83, followed by Iceland and Sweden. The health index score is calculated by evaluating various indicators that assess the health of the population, and access to the services required to sustain good health, including health outcomes, health systems, sickness and risk factors, and mortality rates. The statistic shows the health and health systems ranking of European countries in 2023, by their health index score.

Data on the top universities for Medical and Health in 2025, including disciplines such as Medicine and Dentistry, and Other Health Subjects.

Best Healthcare Export Import Data. Follow the Eximpedia platform for HS code, importer-exporter records, and customs shipment details.

From the Web site:

Our mission is to provide a wide variety of health and health-related information to help policymakers, advocates and individuals understand a population’s health in a holistic, inclusive manner. The diverse set of measures included in America’s Health Rankings® reflect our belief that “health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (World Health Organization Charter).

US national statistics, state-level data, and technical documentation including changes to our measures, guidelines for comparing data across states, information about data years and sources, and more.

Photo by Brooke Lark on Unsplash

https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/explore-health-rankings/rankings-data-documentation

The County Health Rankings, a collaboration between the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, measure the health of nearly all counties in the nation and rank them within states. The Rankings are compiled using county-level measures from a variety of national and state data sources. These measures are standardized and combined using scientifically-informed weights. This year, secure and affordable housing is the focus of the County Health Rankings Key Findings Report for 2019. "By ranking the health of nearly every county in the nation, County Health Rankings & Roadmaps (CHR&R) illustrates how where we live affects how well and how long we live. CHR&R also shows what each of us can do to create healthier places to live, learn, work, and play – for everyone."This feature service contains 2019 County Health Rankings - Health Outcomes data for nation, state, and county levels. This hosted feature layer view was created from the complete 2019 County Health Rankings hosted feature layer, along with an accompanying Health Outcomes view. To see a full list of variables, as well as their definitions and descriptions, explore the Fields information by clicking the Data tab here in the Item Details.Data Processing Notes:Slight modifications made to the source data are as follows:The string " raw value" was removed from field labels/aliases so that auto-generated legends and pop-ups would only have the measure's name, not "(measure's name) raw value" and strings such as "(%)", "rate", or "(per 100,000 population)" were added depending on the type of measure.Percentage and Prevalence fields were multiplied by 100 to make them easier to work with in the map.Fields dropped from analytic data file: yearall fields ending in "_cihigh" and "_cilow"and any variables that are not listed in the sources and years documentation.Analytic data file was then merged with state-specific ranking files so that all county rankings and subrankings are included in this layer.

The County Health Rankings, a collaboration between the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, measure the health of nearly all counties in the nation and rank them within states. This feature layer contains 2020 County Health Rankings data for nation, state, and county levels. The Rankings are compiled using county-level measures from a variety of national and state data sources. Some example measures are:adult smokingphysical inactivityflu vaccinationschild povertydriving alone to workTo see a full list of variables, as well as their definitions and descriptions, explore the Fields information by clicking the Data tab here in the Item Details. These measures are standardized and combined using scientifically-informed weights."By ranking the health of nearly every county in the nation, County Health Rankings & Roadmaps (CHR&R) illustrates how where we live affects how well and how long we live. CHR&R also shows what each of us can do to create healthier places to live, learn, work, and play – for everyone."Some new features of the 2020 Rankings data compared to previous versions:More race/ethnicity categories, including Asian/Pacific Islander and American Indian/Alaska NativeReliability flags that to flag an estimate as unreliable5 new variables: math scores, reading scores, juvenile arrests, suicides, and traffic volumeData Processing Notes:Data downloaded March 2020Slight modifications made to the source data are as follows:The string " raw value" was removed from field labels/aliases so that auto-generated legends and pop-ups would only have the measure's name, not "(measure's name) raw value" and strings such as "(%)", "rate", or "per 100,000" were added depending on the type of measure.Percentage and Prevalence fields were multiplied by 100 to make them easier to work with in the map.For demographic variables only, the word "numerator" was removed and the word "population" was added where appropriate.Fields dropped from analytic data file: yearall fields ending in "_cihigh" and "_cilow"and any variables that are not listed in the sources and years documentation.Analytic data file was then merged with state-specific ranking files so that all county rankings and subrankings are included in this layer.

According to a survey from *************, Taiwan was ranked as the best country for expat healthcare, followed by South Korea and Qatar. This statistic represents the ranking of top ten countries with best healthcare for expats worldwide in 2023.

Background and methodologyIn districts where lymphatic filariasis (LF) is endemic, the goal is to provide 100% geographical coverage of the essential package of care. Additionally, countries seeking elimination status must document the availability of services for lymphoedema and hydrocele in all endemic areas. To do this, the WHO recommends conducting assessments of the readiness and quality of services provided to identify service delivery and quality gaps. This study used the recommended WHO Direct Inspection Protocol (DIP), which consists of 14 core indicators related to LF case management, medicine and commodities, staff knowledge and patient tracking. The survey was administered in 156 health facilities across Ghana designated and trained to provide LF morbidity management services. Patient and health provider interviews were also conducted to assess challenges and feedback.Principal findingsThe highest performing indicators across the 156 surveyed facilities were related to staff knowledge; 96.6% of health workers correctly identified two or more signs and symptoms. The lowest scoring indicators concerned medication availability, with the two lowest scoring indicators in the survey being availability of antifungals (26.28%) and antiseptics (31.41%). Hospitals performed best with an overall score of 79.9%, followed by health centers (73%), clinics (67.1%) and CHPS compounds (66.8%). The most commonly reported challenge from health worker interviews was lack of medications and supplies, followed by a lack of training or poor motivation.Conclusions and significanceThe findings from this study can help the Ghana NTD Program identify areas of improvement as they seek to achieve LF elimination targets and continue to improve access to care for those with LF-related morbidity as part of overall health systems strengthening. Key recommendations include prioritizing refresher and MMDP training for health workers, ensuring reliable patient tracking systems, and integrating lymphatic filariasis morbidity management into the routine healthcare system to ensure medicine and commodity availably.

Data from County Health Rankings and Roadmaps, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation program. The County Health Rankings & Roadmaps program is a collaboration between the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute.

The goals of the program are to: - Build awareness of the multiple factors that influence health
- Provide a reliable, sustainable source of local data and evidence to communities to help them identify opportunities to improve their health - Engage and activate local leaders from many sectors in creating sustainable community change, and - Connect & empower community leaders working to improve health.

This dataset provides a comparative analysis of education and health indicators across top countries, including Poland, Finland, Italy, and the USA etc... The data covers a range of indicators related to education, such as literacy rates, enrollment rates, and education spending, as well as health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality rates, and healthcare spending. The data is sourced from various official and publicly available data sources, including the World Bank, the United Nations, and country-specific government websites. Researchers, analysts, and educators can use this dataset to gain insights into the education and health outcomes of different countries, as well as to identify areas for improvement and best practices. The dataset is ideal for cross-country comparative analysis and can be used to inform policy-making, research, and educational programs.

The data package provides county-level data and rankings for measures that define the population health status and for a set factors with great influence on population health. The measures used to establish counties ranks are related to length and quality of life and to health behavior, clinical care, socioeconomic and environmental factors.

Disaster Healthcare Volunteers (DHV) is a program that registers and credentials health professionals who may wish to volunteer during disaster including doctors, nurses, paramedics, pharmacists, dentists, mental health practitioners, etc. DHV may be used by local officials to support a variety of local needs, including augmenting medical staff at healthcare facilities or supporting mass vaccination clinics. DHV is California's Emergency System for the Advance Registration of Volunteer Health Professionals (ESAR-VHP). This dataset lists the top 10 medical occupations in the DHV system.

Global Health Spending

Country Global Health Spending Over Time

By Eva Murray [source]

About this dataset

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

To get started with this data, begin by exploring the location and time columns as these will provide a breakdown of which countries are represented in the dataset as well as when each observation was collected. To drill down further into the analysis, use indicators, subjects and measures fields for comparison between healthcare spending for different topics like drug access or acute care across countries over time. The values field contains actual values related to healthcare spending while flag codes tell you if there are any discrepancies in data quality so it is important look into those too if necessary.

This dataset is useful for research relatedto how global health expenditures have varied across different countries over time and difference sources of funding among a few other applications. Understanding what's included in this dataset will help you determine how best to use it when doing comparative country-level analyses or international studies on healthcare funding sources over time

Research Ideas

• Identify countries with high public health spending as a percentage of GDP and determine if their population has better health outcomes than those with lower spending.
• Compare public health investments across various countries during the same period to ascertain areas that need more attention, such as medical research, vaccinations, medication and healthcare staffing.
• Determine the trends in health expenditures over time for key indicators such as life expectancy to gain insights into how well a country is managing its healthcare sector

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

License: Dataset copyright by authors - You are free to: - Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially. - Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. - You must: - Give appropriate credit - Provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. - ShareAlike - You must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. - Keep intact - all notices that refer to this license, including copyright notices.

Columns

File: DP_LIVE_18102020154144776.csv | Column name | Description | |:---------------|:-----------------------------------------| | LOCATION | Country or region of the data. (String) | | INDICATOR | Health spending indicator. (String) | | SUBJECT | Health spending subject. (String) | | MEASURE | Measurement of health spending. (String) | | FREQUENCY | Frequency of data collection. (String) | | TIME | Year of data collection. (Integer) | | Value | Value of health spending. (Float) | | Flag Codes | Codes related to data quality. (String) |

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. If you use this dataset in your research, please credit Eva Murray.

Background and methodologyIn districts where lymphatic filariasis (LF) is endemic, the goal is to provide 100% geographical coverage of the essential package of care. Additionally, countries seeking elimination status must document the availability of services for lymphoedema and hydrocele in all endemic areas. To do this, the WHO recommends conducting assessments of the readiness and quality of services provided to identify service delivery and quality gaps. This study used the recommended WHO Direct Inspection Protocol (DIP), which consists of 14 core indicators related to LF case management, medicine and commodities, staff knowledge and patient tracking. The survey was administered in 156 health facilities across Ghana designated and trained to provide LF morbidity management services. Patient and health provider interviews were also conducted to assess challenges and feedback.Principal findingsThe highest performing indicators across the 156 surveyed facilities were related to staff knowledge; 96.6% of health workers correctly identified two or more signs and symptoms. The lowest scoring indicators concerned medication availability, with the two lowest scoring indicators in the survey being availability of antifungals (26.28%) and antiseptics (31.41%). Hospitals performed best with an overall score of 79.9%, followed by health centers (73%), clinics (67.1%) and CHPS compounds (66.8%). The most commonly reported challenge from health worker interviews was lack of medications and supplies, followed by a lack of training or poor motivation.Conclusions and significanceThe findings from this study can help the Ghana NTD Program identify areas of improvement as they seek to achieve LF elimination targets and continue to improve access to care for those with LF-related morbidity as part of overall health systems strengthening. Key recommendations include prioritizing refresher and MMDP training for health workers, ensuring reliable patient tracking systems, and integrating lymphatic filariasis morbidity management into the routine healthcare system to ensure medicine and commodity availably.

Success.ai’s Healthcare Professionals Data for Healthcare & Hospital Executives in Europe provides a reliable and comprehensive dataset tailored for businesses aiming to connect with decision-makers in the European healthcare and hospital sectors. Covering healthcare executives, hospital administrators, and medical directors, this dataset offers verified contact details, professional insights, and leadership profiles.

With access to over 700 million verified global profiles and data from 70 million businesses, Success.ai ensures your outreach, market research, and partnership strategies are powered by accurate, continuously updated, and GDPR-compliant data. Backed by our Best Price Guarantee, this solution is indispensable for navigating and thriving in Europe’s healthcare industry.

Why Choose Success.ai’s Healthcare Professionals Data?

1. Verified Contact Data for Targeted Engagement

   • Access verified work emails, phone numbers, and LinkedIn profiles of healthcare executives, hospital administrators, and medical directors.
   • AI-driven validation ensures 99% accuracy, reducing data gaps and improving communication effectiveness.

2. Comprehensive Coverage of European Healthcare Professionals

   • Includes profiles of professionals from top hospitals, healthcare organizations, and medical institutions across Europe.
   • Gain insights into regional healthcare trends, operational challenges, and emerging technologies.

3. Continuously Updated Datasets

   • Real-time updates capture changes in leadership roles, organizational structures, and market dynamics.
   • Stay aligned with the fast-evolving healthcare landscape to identify emerging opportunities.

4. Ethical and Compliant

   • Fully adheres to GDPR, CCPA, and other global data privacy regulations, ensuring responsible and lawful data usage.

Data Highlights:

• 700M+ Verified Global Profiles: Connect with healthcare professionals and decision-makers in Europe’s hospital and healthcare sectors.
• 70M+ Business Profiles: Access detailed firmographic data, including hospital sizes, revenue ranges, and geographic footprints.
• Leadership Insights: Engage with CEOs, medical directors, and administrative leaders shaping healthcare strategies.
• Regional Healthcare Trends: Understand trends in digital healthcare adoption, operational efficiency, and patient care management.

Key Features of the Dataset:

1. Comprehensive Professional Profiles

   • Identify and connect with key players, including hospital executives, medical directors, and department heads in the healthcare industry.
   • Access data on professional histories, certifications, and areas of expertise for precise targeting.

2. Advanced Filters for Precision Campaigns

   • Filter professionals by hospital size, geographic location, or job function (administrative, medical, or operational).
   • Tailor campaigns to align with specific needs such as digital transformation, patient care solutions, or regulatory compliance.

3. Healthcare Industry Insights

   • Leverage data on operational trends, hospital management practices, and regional healthcare needs.
   • Refine product offerings and outreach strategies to address pressing challenges in the European healthcare market.

4. AI-Driven Enrichment

   • Profiles enriched with actionable data allow for personalized messaging, highlight unique value propositions, and improve engagement outcomes with healthcare professionals.

Strategic Use Cases:

1. Marketing and Outreach to Healthcare Executives

   • Promote healthcare IT solutions, medical devices, or operational efficiency tools to executives managing hospitals and clinics.
   • Use verified contact data for multi-channel outreach, including email, phone, and digital marketing.

2. Partnership Development and Collaboration

   • Build relationships with hospitals, healthcare providers, and medical institutions exploring strategic partnerships or new technology adoption.
   • Foster alliances that drive patient care improvements, cost savings, or operational efficiency.

3. Market Research and Competitive Analysis

   • Analyze trends in European healthcare to refine product development, marketing strategies, and engagement plans.
   • Benchmark against competitors to identify growth opportunities, underserved segments, and innovative solutions.

4. Recruitment and Workforce Solutions

   • Target HR professionals and hiring managers in healthcare institutions recruiting for administrative, medical, or operational roles.
   • Provide workforce optimization platforms, training solutions, or staffing services tailored to the healthcare sector.

Why Choose Success.ai?

1. Best Price Guarantee

   • Access premium-quality healthcare professional data at competitive prices, ensuring strong ROI for your marketing, sales, and strategic initiatives.

2. Seamless Integration
   ...