A Tale of Two Neighbours: Contrasting Austria and Hungary’s Health Metrics

Key Developments

The latest OECD Health at a Glance 2025 report offers a compelling opportunity to benchmark Hungary against its neighbour, Austria. The data reveals a profound divide in health system performance and resources between the two nations.

• Health Outcomes: Austria boasts a life expectancy of 81.9 years, over five years longer than Hungary’s 76.7 years . The contrast in avoidable mortality is even more striking: Austria records 175 avoidable deaths per 100,000 population, whereas Hungary’s rate is more than double at 390 .
• Resource Allocation: Austria invests heavily in its health system, spending $8,401 USD PPP per capita (11.8% of GDP). In comparison, Hungary spends $3,303 per capita, representing just 6.5% of its GDP .
• Workforce: The disparity extends to human resources. Austria maintains a robust workforce with 5.5 practising doctors and 10.6 nurses per 1,000 population. Hungary lags significantly, with 3.6 doctors and only 5.5 nurses per 1,000 people .

Why This Matters

Comparing these two neighbours highlights the tangible impact of health investment. While Austria’s high spending correlates with superior health outcomes and a well-staffed system, Hungary’s data points to a system under strain.

Interestingly, physical infrastructure remains comparable: Austria has 6.6 hospital beds per 1,000 population, nearly identical to Hungary’s 6.5 . This suggests that Hungary’s challenge is not necessarily a lack of facilities, but rather a critical shortage of the funding and personnel required to operate them effectively. It paints a picture of a “hollowed out” infrastructure in Hungary compared to the fully resourced Austrian model.

The Broader Context

Despite the general trend of Austria outperforming Hungary, there is one notable exception where Hungary leads: preventative care for children. Hungary achieved a near 100% vaccination rate for DTP among eligible children, whereas Austria’s coverage is significantly lower, hovering around 85% . This indicates that while Hungary struggles with resource-intensive care, specific public health mandates remain highly effective.

Looking Ahead

The comparison suggests divergent paths. Austria faces the challenge of maintaining efficiency amidst high spending, while Hungary must address the widening gap between its physical capacity (beds) and its human capacity (staff). Without a significant shift in investment strategy to boost workforce numbers and funding, Hungary risks falling further behind its western neighbour in population health outcomes.

What can I say? There is a lot of room for improvement. Unfortunately I don’t have the answers, just a lot of questions.

You can find your own country’s data here: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/health-at-a-glance-2025_8f9e3f98-en.html

The full book is available in English: OECD (2025), Health at a Glance 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8f9e3f98-en.

• The Austria specific part: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/health-at-a-glance-2025_15a55280-en/austria_df51bab3-en.html
• The Hungary specific part: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/health-at-a-glance-2025_15a55280-en/hungary_da09a524-en.html

Personal note: I’m originally from Hungary, living in Austria. This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.