Botswana vs Sub-Saharan Africa: Private prepaid plans
Private prepaid plans over time
- Botswana
- Sub-Saharan Africa
How they compare
Botswana currently reports 79.9% against 36.3% in Sub-Saharan Africa, a difference of 43.6%.
That makes Botswana's figure about 2.2 times Sub-Saharan Africa's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 17 shared years of data; in 1995 it was Sub-Saharan Africa ahead.
Botswana ranks 2nd and Sub-Saharan Africa ranks 2nd of 53 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Botswana averaged higher in 2 and Sub-Saharan Africa in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Botswana | Sub-Saharan Africa | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 4.0% | 42.8% | 38.8% | Sub-Saharan Africa |
| 2000s | 39.6% | 36.3% | 3.3% | Botswana |
| 2010s | 79.9% | 35.4% | 44.5% | Botswana |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher private prepaid plans, Botswana or Sub-Saharan Africa?
- Botswana, at 79.9% against 36.3% in Sub-Saharan Africa as of 2011.
- What is the difference in private prepaid plans between Botswana and Sub-Saharan Africa?
- 43.6%, with Botswana ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Botswana and Sub-Saharan Africa?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 1995 to 2011.
- How do Botswana and Sub-Saharan Africa rank globally for private prepaid plans?
- Botswana ranks 2nd and Sub-Saharan Africa ranks 2nd of 53 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/nha/country/en/), published as Private prepaid plans (% of private expenditure on health). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Prepaid and risk-pooling plans are the expenditure on health by private insurance institutions. Private insurance enrolment may be contractual or voluntary, and conditions and benefits or basket of benefits are agreed on a voluntary basis between the insurance agent and the beneficiaries. They are thus not controlled by government units for the purpose of providing social benefits to members.